Mr. Chairman, allow me to make a statement at the commencement of this discussion. It will not be too lengthy.

Before doing so, however, I should first like to welcome the new hon. the Deputy Minister to these portfolios, portfolios which are new to him. I am particularly pleased for two reasons that it pleased the hon. the Prime Minister to appoint him in this capacity. I am pleased, in the first instance, because the hon. the Deputy Minister is a good friend of mine, and, in the second instance, because he has a special natural aptitude for the activities of the Department of the Interior. As we all know, he is a specialist in the field of electoral affairs, and consequently he is eminently suited for effecting the new reform announced by me. For this reason, he is doubly welcome to his new portfolio.

Mr. Chairman, I now come to the subject in regard to which I wish to make a statement. On 17 May 1978, during the discussion of the Vote of the Department of the Interior, I reported to this House on the compilation of the population register and the issuing of identity documents. Today I should like to report on the progress made since that time up to 31 March of this year. The backlog of 119 000 applications for identity documents, which had not even been opened on 17 May 1978, and 280 000 applications which were in different stages of preparation, were cleared away on 13 October 1978. The daily stream of approximately 900 applications for identity documents have since been kept up to date continuously. On 17 May 1978, 226 000 applications were under inquiry. Up to and including 31 March 1979, 27 479 additional applications necessitating inquiry had been received, while 177 677 had been solved. On 31 March 1979, therefore, 115 802 applications were under inquiry, of which 30 986 are regarded as being unsolvable for the time being, primarily because the applications could not be traced after intensive attempts had been made. The remaining 84 816 applications under inquiry are still receiving attention.

The following other tasks are in various stages of completion, and these applications have not been added to the number under inquiry—

1. (a) Of the 52 819 documents which became separated from the applications concerned before May 1978, 6 708 have been attached to the applications concerned. Since that date amended and newly introduced procedures have prevented the separation of such documents from the applications concerned.
2. (b) Of the 274 000 registrations of deaths which had not been compared to the population register between 1972 and 1976, 173 100 have been compared, and the names of 5 712 deceased persons have been removed.
3. (c) There are 37 000 registrations of births in respect of which the population group still has to be established.
4. (d) There are still approximately 12 000 applicants for identity documents in respect of whom the population group still has to be established.

All these applications, i.e. the inquiries as well as the applications involved in the other tasks I have mentioned, have been computerized, with the result that inquiries from applicants can now, as a rule, be answered within a reasonable space of time. Such inquiries have decreased during that particular period from approximately 2 000 per day to approximately 210 per day at this stage.

During the six months from October 1977 to March 1978 R323 484 was spent on overtime payments, and by making use of overtime and day staff, 477 128 identity documents were dispatched. The average cost per document was R1,45, of which an average amount of R0,68 was for overtime. During the next six months, the corresponding amounts were R1,22 and R0,51. The saving on overtime was 25%, and on overall costs, 16%.

Up to 31 March 1979, the names of 5 333 879 persons—Whites, Coloureds and Indians—had been entered into the population register and the persons concerned provided with identity documents. According to the latest population projections of the Department of Statistics, the number of Whites, Coloureds and Indians is estimated at 7 758 572. That leaves approximately 2 424 583 persons who still have to be provided with identity documents. This estimate is closer to being correct than the estimate of 17 May 1978, according to which the number was 2 477 000. Between 17 May 1978 and 31 March 1979, 601 849 documents were issued.

As is reported in the annual report of the Department of the Interior and Immigration, officials of my department and I visited various overseas countries during July 1978 to investigate in loco the gathering of personal information for the purposes of compiling population registers and issuing identity documents, compiling voters’ rolls, notifying changes of address and all other aspects relating to these functions in the countries concerned. I subsequently decided to introduce a system of decentralization for the gathering of particulars for the purposes of compiling and maintaining the population register, as well as the voters’ rolls. A departmental committee was appointed to work out a practical system and it has already commenced its proceedings. An invitation was extended to the United Municipal Executive, the provincial municipal associations, Government departments, political parties and other interested bodies to serve on this departmental committee of inquiry, and the invitation was accepted.

†The second committee of inquiry I wish to deal with is the interdepartmental committee of inquiry into the issuing of drivers’ licences and the prevention of forgery and the illegal issue of drivers’ licences and other certificates. This committee tends to take the view at this stage that whilst the testing of applicants for drivers’ licences should remain with the provincial authorities, the issuing of drivers’ licences should continue to be done by a central authority on behalf of the provincial authorities and be included, as is now the position, in the identity documents of White, Coloured and Indian persons, and in the case of Black persons, in their reference books. The committee, however, feels that the present practice whereby drivers’ licences are handwritten and pasted into identity documents and reference books should be discontinued. The committee found that this was the one single factor largely contributing to the forgery of drivers’ licences.

*The last committee of inquiry I wish to deal with is the committee of inquiry into a smaller identity document and the substitution of the identity document for children. It is known that the present identity document is unpopular because its bearers find it inconvenient, because of its size and thickness, to carry it on their person. Consequently the identity document does not fulfil its purpose as an immediately available means of proving identification. Changed circumstances which have set in since a start was made more than seven years ago with issuing the identity document, indicate that all the information included in the identity document at present, is possibly no longer necessary and that some of the pages of the identity document may consequently be omitted. A cursory departmental investigation revealed that the outside measurements of the identity document could possibly be reduced by between 30% and 40% and that the number of pages could possibly be reduced by more than half.

Moreover, experience has shown that very little use is made of the children’s identity document which is issued at great expense to children whose birth registrations are entered into the population register. A more simple and much cheaper document could possibly be substituted for that document. A tentative estimate indicates that between R60 000 and R70 000 can be saved per annum by substituting a more simple document for the children’s identity document.

I have been informed that if nothing unforeseen happens and the consultations with other bodies do not cause serious delays, the various committees of inquiry expect to present their reports and recommendations to me for consideration, possibly during the second half of this year.

Before resuming my seat, I want to convey my special gratitude to the new Secretary of the department, advocate Booyens, and his staff, and pay a special tribute to them for the tremendous task they have performed in clearing the backlog and for their imaginative planning and its implementation.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour.

I should like, firstly, to join with the hon. the Minister in welcoming to the post of Deputy Minister the hon. member for Parow. I think he is going to be a very good Deputy Minister in this portfolio. During the years that he has been here, he has—certainly during the years since I have been here—been a friend to all of us, and so I think we can expect great things from him.

The 15 or 20 minutes or so which I have been allowed to discuss this portfolio, is really far too short a time to discuss intelligently the diversity of activities which are grouped under this department. Of necessity, therefore, my remarks are going to have to be somewhat scattered and brief.

I may also say that some of the points I had wished to make were pre-empted a moment or two ago by the hon. the Minister in the announcement he made. I would say to the hon. the Minister that while the contents of his announcement are to be welcomed, I do not think it is the correct practice to make an announcement as wide-reaching as the one he has made at the beginning of the debate. I believe that announcements concerning the affairs of the department and relating to matters on which hon. members have prepared speeches, should be made at least a day before the start of the debate or, alternatively, in response to matters raised within the debate.

If I had made such an announcement earlier you would have said that I was by-passing Parliament.

I would have asked the hon. the Minister about the book of life, but the matter has now been dealt with by him. I should, however, like to ask him when it is anticipated that such a document will be introduced. I refer to the smaller, more concise book of life. What does the hon. the Minister envisage is going to be done with the existing documents? Will they just be phased out and in the process be retained for years and years by people who already have them, or will they be replaced as well?

The hon. the Minister reported on the departmental committee which was appointed to inquire into the decentralized system for the keeping up to date of voters’ lists. He mentioned in the announcement that the various political parties had been invited to advise the departmental committee. I wonder if he has checked whether this is correct, because at this moment I am not aware that political parties have been so invited. Naturally, when they are invited, I am sure that they will accept and play their part. I must say that the question of decentralization and the keeping up to date of the voters’ roll by the new method envisaged by the hon. the Minister are becoming very urgent matters, because the existing methods used are certainly less than efficient I believe that, the sooner the adapted European methods are introduced, the easier and cheaper it will become to achieve a smoother-running electoral process.

I should like briefly to raise the issue of passports. Though the number of applications for passports which have been refused are small, the implications of those refusals are in fact very big. I should like to refer for a moment to the sports scene in South Africa. The question of passports refused remains a stick with which the enemies of South Africa beat us. Nearly all the leading, best-known anti-Government figures in sports administration have at one time or another been denied the right to travel. Despite the fact that their views find little favour in the House, I believe that South Africa does itself more harm than good by denying these people the travel documents they require. Certainly, I believe that the quest to obtain re-admission to world sport can never succeed while the Government refuses its more intractable opponents the right to state their case abroad. I do not believe that any of the persons concerned can do South Africa any more damage than they presently do by letter, by telephone and through the medium of the international Press. The withholding of passports is a form of protection South African sportsmen do not need. A change in policy and approach in this regard will do much to facilitate efforts by the Department of Sport and Recreation and by sportsmen generally to re-establish relations with Western foreign countries.

Sir, the PFP’s attitude on race classification is well-known. We find the concept, the legislation and the methods used abhorrent to our sensibilities. In this attitude I believe we are supported by all except perhaps 10% of the population of South Africa. It is our policy—and I must state it—to wipe out for ever that legislative pollute which has caused so much heartache and bitterness and which ranks near the top of the causes for the isolation of our country. However, the Opposition is not in power and it has no legislative power to do what it wishes. I would, however, like to comment on the implementation of the Act at the present time. Here, paradoxically, I must compliment the hon. the Minister and the Secretary. At last it seems that an element of humanity is creeping into the bureaucracy that surrounds this Act. The stamp of new management, I believe, is emerging. Decisions taken by the Secretary in terms of section 5(4)(c) of the Act, in terms of which classifications have been altered with the consent of and on the application of persons concerned, have virtually doubled in the last year. This is one of the few sections of the Act which allow of subjective handling and I commend the Secretary on the broader approach which is being adopted and has been adopted since he took office.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot resume my seat without raising again the system of censorship and publications control. Plainly speaking, it is not working. As Die Transvaler on 19 April 1979 put it—

The views in this article in Die Transvaler, a portion of which I quoted, are those of André Brink, Chris Barnard, Prof. T. T. Cloete and Danie van Niekerk. Despite the hon. the Minister’s attempts—and they were honest attempts—despite his efforts made last year, we have in recent months witnessed the spectacle of a celebrated book, banned as being undesirable and offensive and written by one of South Africa’s finest authors, being awarded the Hertzog Prize for literature, our premier accolade. This is in direct contradiction to the findings of the publications appeal board. I submit that a book cannot be offensive and undesirable and at the same time be South Africa’s top Afrikaans literary work. One of the two decisions is wrong. Rapport of 29 April 1979 is quite frank about the issue and the impasse which exists, and in an editorial says as follows—

Further on in the editorial, at the end, it says—

André Brink, whose CNA prize winning book Rumours of Rain has only now, after a long delay, been passed by the appeal board, uses far stronger language than that which I have just read from Rapport. In fact, he says that South African writers are at war with the authorities. So much for the détente. So much for the impasse which the hon. the Minister alleged he had broken last year. Appeal Board chairman, Lammie Snyman, crowns the comedy of publications control in South Africa by pontificating that while the book is offensive, it is not undesirable. Once again the system of publications control is being reduced in South Africa from the sublime to the ridiculous. Surely, the Government can afford to treat South African writers and readers as adults. Surely, the Government can afford to treat South African readers as people who are capable of taking criticism and of reading about life as it really is, or must they all write and read about that kitsch dream world which exists only in the pages of Huisgenoot, Rooi Rose and Fair Lady? Is that what the Government wishes to reduce us to? Is that what the Government has in mind for us? No, Mr. Chairman, I honestly believe that this cannot go on.

The hon. the Minister inherited this Act. It is not an Act which was created by him. I believe he should take a long, hard look at this Act once again. I believe he should study and then modernize that section, for instance, which attempts to prescribe what is offensive, undesirable and the like. He should look at it, modernize it and make it more liberal in the thinking of readers and writers. I should further like to suggest that committees should be entitled and obliged to hear argument, to take evidence and to have available to them expert evidence presented on behalf of authors, publishers and the like. I should also like to suggest that the two-year refer-back period should be reduced by at least one year. But most important of all, the appeal board should be abolished and aggrieved persons should be allowed access to the Supreme Court of South Africa. It is quite wrong—and this is a matter of principle—to allow one man, no matter how erudite and wellqualified he may be, himself to set South Africa’s norms of morality. It is quite wrong for one man to decide when criticism crosses the border and becomes subversion. For one man’s prejudices and pet theories to be inflicted upon all of South Africa as ultimate law, is the cardinal error of this legislation and the major cancer all South Africans are up against.

We can hardly accept your norms.

I am not asking that hon. member to accept my norms. He has never aspired to any heights. I am not asking him to do that at all. I am asking him to allow an impartial judicial body—the Supreme Court, to adjudicate upon aggrieved cases. There is no judicial substitute for the various provincial divisions of the Supreme Court and, if necessary, the full Bench of the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein. I therefore urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider the whole aspect of judicial appeal. As I have said, the hon. the Minister did not invent this system. Therefore he will not lose face by changing it. In fact, I believe that a change of heart as far as publications control is concerned, can only enhance the standing of the hon. the Minister and can certainly aid the advance of literary talent in South Africa.

An interjection was made a little while ago from those benches. I should like to ask a question of those hon. members. Do hon. members believe that the PFP, in pleading for a more liberal system of publications control, wants pornography and subversive material to be allowed into South Africa? [Interjections.] You do? Has somebody said the PFP wants it?

Yes.

Well, I am surprised at that answer for I have always believed and assumed that all of us, including the Government, are opposed to the propagation of pornography and subversive material. Is that not the view of all hon. members? It is certainly the view of this party. I have always understood that the Government has always taken a very strong moralistic line and stand on this sort of issue, but then there is an old saying which goes: “Honour sinks where commerce long prevails.” I discovered that when I went to London recently.

Was it then that you wrote that article in Punch?

I was most interested to see that the South African Government had financed a South African advertising campaign to advertise some of our products. These advertisements were very eye-catching and most imaginative. I brought back an example of how South Africa advertises its products abroad. I have a poster here with me which has been distributed all over Britain and which advertises navel oranges. I shall lay it on the Table if you want me to, Mr. Chairman. I must congratulate the Department of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture on their enterprise. It is clear to me that if the Government cannot sell its policy, it is at least going to sell oranges. Having shown this to hon. members and having shown them that in the eyes of many people double standards are being applied, I believe an end should now come to those hypocritical accusations that the PFP is in favour of pornography. We do not have any pictures of this sort on our policy statements.

Mr. Chairman, before reacting to the speech of the hon. member for Sandton, I too wish to associate myself with the hon. the Minister in his congratulation of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I wish to state that the hon. the Prime Minister’s choice has been a very good one. We who have been working in the same team with him for years, appreciate his value and the quality of his work, and I am convinced that his accession to this department in this particular capacity, has caused our position there to be greatly strengthened and reinforced. The hon. the Deputy Minister was not a greenhorn in the Interior study group. When I came here as a young member several years ago, he was already there and he rendered outstanding and fruitful service there. We express the hope that he is still going to be with us for a very long time and that he will continue his good work for us there.

Another matter I wish to refer to is perhaps less pleasant. On this occasion I think back to a very honoured member who has departed this life, namely the former hon. member for Koedoespoort, Mr. P. H. J. Krijnauw. He was a member who, with his particular talents, particularly as regards publications control, rendered a very important contribution. We and his colleagues in the Interior study group are very sorry that a person of his outstanding talents should have died such an untimely death.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for the outstanding manner in which he leads the department and also for the statements he made at the commencement of the debate this afternoon. I wish to tell him—this is perhaps not even necessary— that we have already learned that one should not take much notice of the hon. member for Sandton. If the hon. the Minister had not made the statement at all, he would have criticized him for that, and now that he has made a statement, he is criticizing him for having made it. If the hon. the Minister had made this statement a month ago, he would have criticized him, and if he had done it a month from now, he would still have criticized him. We have learned to expect superficial points of criticism from the hon. member. During the rest of his speech this debate degenerated into a debate on the control of publications.

However, we are grateful for the progress that has been made with the issuing of identity documents. Authorities on the subject realize that it is no easy task. This is a comprehensive task and we therefore have great appreciation for the work being done by him and the department. We are also grateful that study committees have been appointed on decentralization. I think it is a sound and fair policy the hon. the Minister is now pursuing that we are bringing the service rendered by the Department of the Interior as close as possible to the public. We are also pleased that the identity document is going to be issued in a smaller format.

The hon. member for Sandton uttered a few superficialities. He dealt, inter alia, with passports and tried to make out that the Government and the hon. the Minister were not acting fairly in respect of the issuing of passports. I think this was very superficial and unfair criticism. Control over people entering and leaving the country is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister. From my experience of the hon. the Minister, he would apply this fairly in respect of the individual and also in respect of the country he is so desirous of serving.

The hon. member also made a few remarks with regard to race classification. I think these were unfortunate remarks, as though the department and the Minister were trying to get round the Act in some way. Through the years we have insisted that the identification of people in terms of ethnic links in South Africa was essential.

Take that law off the Statute Book; it is an inhuman law.

We accepted that sometimes problems could arise with people who were borderline cases, heartache cases, but that we should try to handle these cases with the utmost fairness. When there is a change in the number of people to whom this applies within a particular period, this does not mean that the hon. the Minister or his department is bending the Act.

My point of view with regard to what the hon. member has said about the South African advertisements abroad is that what applies within the country should also apply abroad. What I find reprehensible at home, I also regard as reprehensible everywhere in the world. If advertisements were therefore to appear abroad advertising South African products which were contrary to our general views, I should not be happy about it.

The hon. member for Sandton is a very outspoken hon. member and is very fond of metaphor. I wish to remind him of his “punch-drunk” article in which he displayed very little sympathy and respect for the Afrikaner people. Whenever the hon. member rises to speak in this House, there are many people in South Africa who realize that he has no respect for the values of other national groups. He is particularly very unfavourably disposed towards the Afrikaner. The Afrikaners sitting with him in his party are categorized in our community as a type of their own. The hon. member would do well to go into the history of our nation to see how we class such people. In view of the remarks the hon. member has made about the Huisgenoot today, I just wish to tell him that the Huisgenoot has for many years been, and still is, an outstanding periodical. To make this sort of scathing remark about a recognized and good Afrikaans weekly is, in my view, merely further proof that the hon. member could well write the type of article he wrote in Punch. There will be a time when the hon. member will again have to go to the electorate and then we who respect the ideals of a distinct national group will know that not only does that hon. member not care for us, but that he also does not care for other national groups.

You will probably make the front page of the Huisgenoot.

I saw a heading in a newspaper: “Rapped Jack Boot Dalling angry.” Evidently the hon. member is often angry. I should very much like to know on what basic principles the political policy of the PFP rests in South Africa. Later in my speech I shall refer to certain discussions that have taken place at PFP congresses. When it suits them, they like to adopt Christian values as a norm, but whenever it is a question of a lack of restraint and when people do as they like—often they do this in the name of the Church and Christianity—then the hon. member is quick to say with regard to the church and its good work—

The hon. member further said—

The hon. member is very quick to use a certain adjective in this regard …

Do you know what is going on in Sandton?

Surely the hon. member for Sandton has had an opportunity of stating his case. The hon. member spoke about the basic principles of Christianity. In view of that, and to return to the question of control of publications, I wish to tell him and his party that they must tell us on what principles their policy with regard to control of publications is based. As far as I know, the PFP has never really made a statement on the control of publications, except in September last year when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout expressed his views on pornography in strong terms. The hon. member for Sandton has stated today that he is opposed to pornography and publications that constitute a danger to the State. I should like the hon. member to give the House a definition of what he and his party regard as pornography. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as a former pressman who sat in the Press gallery more than quarter of a century ago, I wish to discuss the delicate question regarding the Press today. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the matter in great earnest during the discussion of his Vote, and I believe it is necessary that we should take the matter further. The time has come for us to obtain more clarity on this extremely delicate question of the function and role of the Press. My premise is that in the Press—as in any other profession—one finds the good and the bad. I wish to state here and now that in the newspapers in South Africa, as I have learned to know them intimately over a period of more than 20 years, there are more honourable people than there are dishonourable ones. In actual fact, the transgressors in the newspaper world are in a small minority. The vast majority of journalists in South Africa are good, loyal South Africans, people who are performing an extremely difficult task with great skill and responsibility. They perform the most important functions of the Press, namely informing the public and acting as watchdog, very scrupulously.

My experience has been journalists in general are men and women of integrity. They are people who act in terms of strict codes of rectitude, equity, fairness, honour and decency.

The newspaper industry in South Africa is in general a fine and profitable one. Our newspapers are among the best-produced and most newsworthy in the world. We have reason to be proud of this fine industry. However, the newspaperman is deeply hurt when people, and particularly politicians, simply slam the Press as a whole as though all of them were guilty and at fault. When we are angry with a newspaper, we should have the courage to call it by its name when we attack it. We should not generalize in a cowardly manner. We are too inclined to label all with the same tag. South Africa has, in general, a responsible Press. It is a pity, though, that the actions of a section of the Press is often the cause that the Press as a whole is slated. The image of the Press suffers as a result, and the confidence of the public in the Press is shaken.

After the Watergate scandal in America, the so-called “investigative journalism” was blown over here. Newspapers became very penetratingly investigative. They scratch out and they scratch open. We have no fault to find with that. That is a newspaper’s task and its right. One keeps democracy pure, after all, by exposing malpractices and corruption and so initiating a process of purging. However, like many other South Africans I am deeply concerned about a new element that is gradually raising its head to an increasing extent in a section of our Press. In a section of the leftist Press in South Africa, we notice what I might call a type of journalistic terrorism. There are people in the newspaper offices of South Africa who, behind the convenient shield of freedom of the Press, are really going too far. It is due to them that the Press as a whole in our country comes in for criticism. These people are continually sailing close to the wind by making use of wild inferences that are obviously contrary to factual findings, and a clever manipulation of facts combined with scraps of information. They make use of quasi-information, and sometimes even of blatant untruths. The worst, however, is that we have never encountered such undermining of leaders in this country as this section of the Press is now engaged in. Leading figures are calumniated by the use of smear techniques which link their names to some scandal or another. Innocent people are dragged in such an ingenious way that they are helpless to vindicate themselves. Halftruths, suggestion and innuendo are employed in a masterly fashion to malign people. The result of this is that respected people in this country are today suffering a deep sense of hurt. If this were to continue, fewer and fewer decent people would see their way clear to enter public life, where they would become free game.

I am sorry that I have to say these things here today, but these are unfortunately things about which we dare no longer keep quiet. In saying this I am in good company, in any event. In fact, some of our newspapers are also saying this, newspapers that agree with me. The editor of Beeld refers to “questionable journalism that is not a credit to the freedom of the Press”. That is the type of journalism being practised in this country. The editor of Beeld goes on to state—

Beeld also states—

There are newspapers—and I could quote some more of them—that agree with me when I say these things. The section of the Press I am referring to is no longer engaged in mere Press functions. They have become a leftist pressure group, a pressure group that wants to aim this country in a dangerous direction. In truth, these people have become the official Opposition in our country, since the official Opposition is dancing to their tune and eating out of their hand.

It is this destructive Press that broke down the decent United Party Opposition and, through their writings, drove a decent leader of the Opposition like Sir De Villiers Graaff right out of politics and right out of this House. See what a pathetic Opposition we have here today.

The Government has been very patient and long-suffering with the anarchist Press of our country. The abuse and depravity in a section of our political journalism has now gone far enough. We cannot allow it to go further. It is a great pity that we have to say this. If drastic action is taken now, these people must know it is their own fault and no one else’s. After all, they have had many warnings.

The hon. the Prime Minister cannot be blamed if he now comes forward with certain disciplinary steps. It will be a great pity if the good ones also have to suffer when punishment is meted out to the bad. However, it seems to me that we have no alternative but to take disciplinary steps for a change so that we can put this section of the Press, this section of the leftist Press that has become so wilful and so reckless, in their place.

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for Bloemfontein North refers to disciplinary action the Government ought to take, I want to say to him clearly that the NRP will not be in favour of action of any nature if it amounts to undermining the freedom of the Press in any way whatsoever. Although one has sympathy with certain things the hon. member said, one nevertheless wonders whether he would have said the same about the good, responsible United Party three, four or five years ago. It seems to me that often one has to be dead before people praise one. I too wish to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his appointment. I hope that we will co-operate well. We have co-operated in committees before, and we have confidence in him.

†I should now like to raise a matter which I regard as very serious one. It is a matter in which, I am sorry to say, the actions of the Government have been quite outrageous. This is a matter which, I believe, has created a very dangerous precedent in South Africa. With the facts available to me, I can only describe as unconstitutional the manner in which the Government altered a local authority ordinance when it was forwarded by the Natal Provincial Council for the approval and signature of the State President. It was returned from the State President with an amendment and a deletion. The long title of the ordinance was amended and a clause was deleted. Hon. members will agree with me that this is unheard of and needs a full and satisfactory explanation from the hon. the Minister, and I hope we shall be getting such an explanation from him today. The effect of this legislation was, amongst other things, to prevent municipal employees from continuing to serve as members of the provincial council after they had already been elected to that body.

I may add that at that time the NP was represented by a serving town clerk in the Natal Provincial Council, but the Natal Provincial Council saw to it that the proposed amendment would not affect his pension rights as such. I mention this detail purely because I want to make it clear that this is not a case of the province wanting to carry on a vendetta against a certain person. As far as I am concerned, however, the details are quite irrelevant to my purpose in raising this issue. We are concerned with the actual principle involved.

I should like to deal with the facts as they are known to me. What I should like to know—and what I think we should demand from the hon. the Minister—is under what section of what Act the Government acted in this regard. We know that the Government is legally empowered to reject ordinances or refuse to sign them, but—and this is the central issue—from where does it derive its power to amend and delete sections of provincial ordinances? If it has such powers, one must assume that it also has powers to add provisions. If one can delete and amend, one can obviously also add. If this is so, I believe that the whole system of provincial legislation in South Africa has, in fact, become a total farce. I can think of reasons— or perhaps a reason—why the Government would not have wanted to see that particular ordinance passed in its original form. I myself happen to be a member of the Select Committee investigating offices of profit. At present we are in the process of drawing up legislation which could lead to the disqualification of public representatives, thus overriding the provisions of that ordinance. If that were a consideration—and I do not know—the action the Government should have taken was to have returned the ordinance as such; in other words to have refused to sign it. In that case, of course, it would have been anticipating the findings of a Select Committee. That would still not have given it the right, however, to delete or amend the ordinance. What has happened is therefore without precedent. It is outrageous, and I wonder if it is not wholly provocative as well. The onus rests with the hon. the Minister to explain this action today. Unless we are told from where the Government derives its power to do such things, we shall regard this as a violation of the constitution and various Acts regulating the relationship between the provinces and the central Government. Heaven knows, the province of Natal and its people have, through the years, had more than their share of insults from the Nationalist Government. They have been trampled upon time and time again. Why continue to do so? If hon. members say we have not been trampled on, time and time again, by the Nationalist Government, they need only ask their own NP MPC for Pinetown. He spoke only last week about how the province is treated as a Cinderella province. He spoke about the paternalistic gestures towards Natal. What I am saying here therefore not only reflects what we think, but also reflects the views of an NP provincial councillor in Natal. I do not object only because I am from the province of Natal. It should be quite obvious that we are fighting here for a principle, a principle which affects all the other provinces as well. The other provinces will be equally offended if this should happen to them. This action is outrageous and I want to say that there is no arrogance so great and revolting as the arrogance of a Government which shows total disregard for good manners. Even if the Government had some difficulty with this particular ordinance, it would have been nothing more than etiquette and good manners for the Government to have referred the matter back to the province or to have held discussions with the member of the executive in charge.

How do you know that we did not do that?

In what way was it done? They went on to sign and alter it. That is the point. We want to know under which law that was done. I believe it also shows arrogance when the Government shows a total disregard for an act of legitimate democratic expression, because that is what is involved here. Whether one likes the ordinance or not, it represents an act of legitimate democratic expression on the part of that provincial council. I hope the hon. the Minister can give us clarity on this. The main question is whether the Minister or the Government acted legally in this respect.

*I want to say a few things about the question of censorship, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Rissik thinks it is being discussed too much. Earlier this year we dealt with a short piece of legislation relating to publications. After I had once again pointed out to the hon. the Minister on that occasion that the alienation between the authors, especially the Afrikaans authors, and the authorities was still increasing, the hon. the Minister said, quite rightly, that he had done a lot about the matter and that everyone would agree that he had defused the matter.

I did not say that. I said “defused to a certain degree”.

Very well, let us accept that the hon. the Minister said “defused to a certain degree”. The fact remains that it evoked a reaction, as was quoted by the hon. member for Sandton here. It is important that we take note of this. In the case of André Brink, people will probably say, “Yes, but he is far left of the Government.” The fact remains that he expressed his amazement that the hon. the Minister could think along those lines. Chris Barnard also states clearly that the position has indeed become far more grim. Prof. Cloete said that there had been no change in the handling of this matter. That is what I want to bring home to the hon. the Minister. He has tried, but has not yet succeeded in overcoming the alienation that has developed. The point I want to make is that as long as there is alienation, it creates a situation in which normal circumstances cannot exist and which affects the literary development of the nation. It is for that reason that I believe that in spite of what the hon. the Minister did in the past, he will have to re-examine the implementation of the system of censorship. Let me say here and now that my party is not in favour of the abolition of the system of censorship. However, we cannot close our eyes and say that we are dealing here with something which does not really create a problem.

Then I want to refer to one or two aspects relating to identity documents. We are very glad that the hon. the Minister gained insight in this. He travelled overseas and according to the annual report the system of decentralization works extremely well overseas as far as elections are concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to enter the debate at once because the hon. member for Durban Central made a very unreasonable allegation concerning a section of the draft ordinance which was not approved by the State President. I want to tell the hon. member and all other hon. members who represent constituencies in Natal, that they can accuse me of many things in life, but not of pettiness in politics, and specifically not pettiness towards Natal or towards English-speaking people.

The reply to the hon. member’s question is very simple. The clause in question was omitted in terms of section 89 of the Constitution. The hon. member would do well to go and consult the provisions of the section in question. It was omitted for a purely technical reason, because the legal advisers were of the opinion that the clause in question was ultra vires. I quote from the advice of the legal advisers—

As a result of this and in terms of section 89 of the Constitution, the provincial administration in question was informed to that effect. We then received a letter from the Provincial Secretary of Natal, from which I quote the following—

Is this such a sin? It is on a simple technical point that the clause in question is ultra vires the constitution so that the provincial administration was advised that it could not be accepted. They then requested us to omit it in those circumstances and to pass the ordinance without it.

I have news for the hon. member. We do not only do these “evil” things in respect of Natal, but recently acted in the same way in respect of an ordinance of the Cape as well, one concerning Walvis Bay. We therefore do this time and again. If a petty political issue had been made of this, the hon. member could have attacked me, but not on a question such as this.

At a later stage I shall deal with the question of publications control in full. Meanwhile I want to deal with the hon. member for Sandton. In the first place, I want to tell him that it is a long time since I last saw such beautiful oranges as those on the “Outspan” poster he sent me. [Interjections.]

The hon. member asked when the smaller identification book would be introduced. My reply to that is: As soon as we are able.

He also asked whether his party had ever been invited to participate in the proceedings of the committee on decentralization. Apparently I know much more than the hon. member about what goes on in his party. Mr. M. W. Ross, their national director, accepted an invitation to serve on the committee on 17 January 1979. [Interjections.]

As far as his complaints about passports are concerned, I want to pride myself on the fact that in respect of this matter I have already received praise from embarrassing quarters for being extremely reasonable and fair as far as passports and visas are concerned. Recently I read a report in The Argus in which my policy in respect of visas was highly praised. I am not prepared to furnish reasons as to why specific passports have been withheld. I am not prepared to do so, but I am prepared to accept responsibility for the few decisions which have been negative, because I think that it was in actual fact in the best interests of this country—and not of necessity in the best interests of the NP—that such passports were not issued.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to give the assurance that the withholding of the passports we are discussing has nothing whatsoever to do with any activities relating to sport or sport administration?

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to make the statement that no sportsman or sport administrator’s passport is being withheld or will be withheld. I do not want to state that, but what I do want to say, is that fundamentally the reason for the passport is being withheld has nothing to do with sport. There are other reasons.

With regard to the population registration, I honestly think that we thrashed out this matter at great length in the motion before this House earlier this year, and consequently I do not want to dwell on it now.

I shall come to publications control presently.

I want to thank the hon. member for Rissik for his contribution to the debate and I specifically want to associate myself with his words on the late Mr. P. H. J. Krijnauw, in life the member for Koedoespoort. He was a very valued member of the study group on this side of the House. I also want to thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein North for his words concerning the Press and tell him that he will probably not expect of me to comment on that at this point in time. The hon. the Prime Minister issued a very well-considered and calculated statement about the Press, and I think that the ball is now in their court and that the next move should come from their side.

I think I have now replied to all the questions put to me and I now want to deal with publications control. I intentionally say “publications control”, not censorship. In the first place I want to express the hope that hon. members will not continue with the idea that the control in this regard should be given back to the courts. I have quoted ad nauseam from what eminent and respected judges have said on this matter. Allow me just to quote once more what Judge of Appeal Mr. Justice Rumpff said in the well-known Heineman case—

If this respected chief justice expresses such opinions, why should we continue to quarrel about this matter? Since I became the Minister in charge of this department, there have already been significant changes with regard to publications control. Firstly, amendments to the Act itself have been effected. In terms of these amendments, a committee of experts can be constituted from a panel of experts which the Minister constitutes every three years, to advise the Appeal Board on particular publications and works of art, etc., which are the subject of an appeal. The names of highly respected experts appear on that panel and committees constituted from it have already done fine and valued work. For example, the appeal board accepted key recommendations made by them concerning the appeal on the book Rumours of Rain by André P. Brink. Secondly, public entertainment can also now be made subject to omissions and age restrictions instead of total approval or rejection. Several shows have already had the advantage of this amendment. In this regard, I am referring principally to revues etc., which have no red artistic merit, only a little entertainment value. But these things have been allowed, while they could not be allowed under the old dispensation. Thirdly, a publication, etc., may now be approved by the appeal board subject to certain conditions. This is an important concession. Fourthly, a question of law that arises in the proceedings of the appeal board may now be reserved for a ruling by the Supreme Court. Furthermore I can refer to the interesting finding in the Magersfontein case, a case in which it was ruled, inter alia, that the probable reader should be taken into account as a factor in assessment of a publication in terms of section 47(2)(a), i.e. whether a publication is improper or indecent or objectionable or harmful to public morals.

Allow me to state my point of view here clearly. I am a moderate person, and this goes for publications control too. I cannot associate myself with the far right point of view and obviously not with leftist views either. As far as I am concerned—and the country should know this—the framework of the Act is sound. Whether further amendments to its machinery will have to be effected, time and practice will tell. At the moment, I am not considering any further amendment. But I want to go a little further. In view of the fact that the appeal board can reject certain publications in terms of section 47 when, for example, they expound political objectives or when the security of the State is involved, I want to give a further illustration of exactly how reasonable and fair we are in these matters. One of the publications which caused the directorate and the appeal board problems over a long period, is the publication The Voice. A publication such as The Voice creates a highly sensitive situation owing to its association with religious organizations. How was this matter approached? Certain editions were rejected completely and at a later stage even a total ban, lifted again at a later stage, was imposed on the publication.

But the Directorate did not leave it at that. They called in the people concerned and spoke to them in a reasonable way.

†I now want to read excerpts from a letter that the directorate received from the manager of The Voice in this connection on 25 August. It reads as follows—

If this does not show compassion on the part of the directorate, I do not know what compassion is.

*This demonstrates the standpoint which the directorate and the appeal board adopt in doing this work and not merely that of being negative. I want to take this point further. A great fuss is being made about Donderdag of Woensdag by Miles. It is true—and I do not want to evade it—that whereas the appeal board, in the case of André P. Brink’s book Gerugte van Reën-Rumours of Rain makes use of key recommendations of the committee of experts—distinguished people, people whose work and recommendations are highly valued—it did not make use of their recommendations in the case of Miles’s book Donderdag of Woensdag. Section 47 of the Act reads very expressly that it should be one of the decisive norms that a book should not hurt the religious feelings of a section of the population. Incidentally, I just want to say that since I have been the Minister in control of the department, a period of more than a year now, I have issued one directive only, and that was in respect of a book on Yasser Arafat which was passed by a committee of publications. The local Moslem population was in uproar and I issued a directive to the appeal board. The Moslem population was in uproar because an allegation was made in that book that homosexuality was supposedly an everyday thing among Moslems. I then issued a directive and the appeal board prohibited the book. I could have expected some thanks for that, but that is how it goes in this work. One never receives thanks. I now ask the Opposition: Why did they not object to that? If they object to the banning of Miles’s book, why can they not object to that, too?

The hon. member for Sandton knows what my attitude is in respect of anti-Semitism. He knows I am opposed to it. Consequently I want to ask the hon. member for Sandton: If a new book is issued in this country tomorrow, or the next day, which says that the fact that six million Jews died under Nazi domination, is a Zionist lie, must I issue a directive to the appeal board in that connection?

No.

Should I not issue a mandate?

No.

I am therefore to let it through so that hate of the Jews in this country can be caused in that way.

Treat the book with the contempt that it deserves.

If this is the hon. member’s reply to me, I want to tell him that I also treat his ideas with regard to the control of publications with the contempt that they deserve.

That was uncalled for.

I am referring to the book by Miles.

Did you hear what I said just now? I said you should treat such a book with the contempt it deserved.

Not my views?

No.

Then I apologize to the hon. member. But I still do not think much of his ideas on publications control.

*The situation with regard to Miles’s book is that it was turned down by the appeal board solely on religious grounds. I readily admit that a committee of experts recommended this book for approval. On his own initiative, the chairman of the appeal board then called in the assistance in this regard of Prof. Dr. J. A. Heyns, an expert in the field of theology. In accordance with the provisions of the legislation in question he was most definitely entitled to do so. No one can describe Prof. Dr. J. A. Heyns as a verkrampte or a conservative as far as his general philosophy of life, or his theology are concerned. In the circumstances it is, in my opinion, reasonable to say that if he expresses certain opinions with regard to religion with reference to something contained in a book, they ought to carry weight. To substantiate my argument further, I should like to quote certain extracts from the decision of the appeal board. I prefer not to describe to this House how the specific character, “Oom Doef”, was hung up in a tree and in what position he hung there. What it amounts to, however, is that he was hung on a tree in a certain position and then a very unnecessary and comprehensive description of his genitals is given. The following words then appear in the book—

Prof. Dr. J. A. Heyns had the following to say about this—

With all respect to the authors and literary people of this country, I want to say that if a responsible person in the field of theology such as Dr. J. A. Heyns makes these and other statements which are well motivated, the appeal board must take due cognizance of them. For hon. members who are now regularly saying that we should return to the courts, I can quote many court rulings such as the famous Gallow court ruling in which the court, in similar circumstances in respect of religious matters prohibited a publication on exactly the same grounds.

Time and again it has been confirmed by the appeal board itself that if a work of art or publication is good art or literature, a great deal of discretion is allowed in its assessment. But good art or literature can never be the total motivation for the approval of such a work. If in the final analysis, a work such as that stipulated in section 47 has certain deficiencies, it must be rejected in certain circumstances, and certainly if it is in conflict with the security of the country or certain religious convictions of an important section of the population.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak directly after the hon. the Minister. I want to take this opportunity to thank him, and I think the country thank him, for his strong stand against anti-Semitism. I think that his stand holds good for people who are “anti” any racial or religious group in South Africa. However, my function this afternoon is to deal with immigration.

In doing so, I congratulate the hon. the Minister on taking back the portfolio of Immigration into his department. We are also grateful to the previous hon. Minister, Mr. Le Grange, who had control over the department since 30 January 1978, for the work he did. I also want to take this opportunity on behalf of the official Opposition to congratulate the Secretary, Mr. Booyens, and his staff for the work they are doing in the field of immigration. We trust that the move made, whereby the portfolios of the Interior and Immigration were put together has been successful and makes for better administration.

Sir, the immigration story offers nought for one’s comfort. The palmy days of 1976 when we had a net gain of 30 769 are past. The year 1977 showed a net loss of 795 and the nine months ending in September 1978 showed a net loss of 2 936.

Immigration dropped by 50% on the 1977 figure and has again dropped by 50% according to the present figures. However, emigration increased by 75% on the figure for 1977 and went from 25 000 for 1977 to 16 313 for the nine months for which figures are now available.

If we want to maintain a growth rate of 5,5% in South Africa, we need 30 000 immigrants, net, every year. We still have a shortage of skilled labour, and we do need entrepreneurs with capital to come to this country to set up and expand enterprises and thus create work opportunities for the 800 000 unemployed. On the other side, we need to slow down emigration to the average figure for the past, which I calculated for the period from 1961 to 1976 as being 9 520 per annum. We must not have figures such as the 25 519 emigrants in 1977 and 16 313 for the nine months until September 1978, which is a figure 175% higher than that mean average we had over the years. We must also remember that the growth of the White population group of this country increased by 2,2%. Had it not been for the immigrants over the 30 years, the figure would only have been 1,39%. Moreover, immigrants contributed 38% towards work opportunities in this country for skilled and unskilled labour. Considering that between 1961 and 1977 a total number of 614 498 immigrants came to South Africa, one realizes that this was to the benefit of the country, although R115 000 had to be spent by the Government on advertising in order to obtain those immigrants for South Africa. In 1977 that amount dropped to R82 000. I must express alarm, however, at the fact that owing to legislation and other enactments we are no longer permitted to advertise for immigrants in West Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. This is particularly significant when one considers that during the 30 years to which I have referred, out of 497 564 immigrants from the Netherlands, 45 245 came to South Africa. In 1977 only 335 immigrants came here from the Netherlands, 160 from Belgium and 752 from West Germany. In the year ending 30 June 1978 a total number of 122 immigrants came here from the Netherlands, 46 from Belgium and 238 from West Germany. How is it possible then that a country such as Canada, with an unemployment rate of 8,2%, with the coldest climate in the world, high cost of living, and many other adverse circumstances, could attract 174 000 of the 497 000 immigrants from Europe, mostly from Holland? Of those 145 000 went to Australia, 87 000 to the USA, while only 45 000 came to South Africa. What is wrong with this country of sunshine and opportunity? Why can we not attract sufficient numbers of immigrants? These are questions we have to answer.

I have the following suggestions which I want to put to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. Firstly, we should provide security and in its wake, prosperity will follow. We must provide an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity. When we can prove that a strong, clean Government is in full control of the situation in South Africa, it will also serve as proof of the fact that we can live in peace and co-operation with our neighbours, and in a spirit of goodwill and trust. We should provide work opportunities and housing of a more favourable standard than that enjoyed by the prospective immigrant in his country of origin. It must even be of a more favourable nature than any other overseas country can offer him.

When did you join the NP? [Interjections.]

We must remove inequality in remuneration. We must also abolish the practice of detention without trial, guarantee the freedom of the Press and freedom of speech.

Furthermore, what we need is to be allowed a free choice of association and of entertainment. We should also have a free choice regarding participation in sport. I think legislation based on discrimination between the races should be repealed forthwith. We must also try to create economic stability based on political stability, something which, in turn, can only follow when political power is shared. Once our house has been put in order, let us make all our immigrants feel welcome and at home in South Africa. We should let them feel that they have made the right decision by choosing South Africa as a new home, a decision they will never regret. We must not forget that the decision to leave one’s country of birth is a decision not lightly taken and that the whole process of emigrating to another country is of a traumatic nature.

If we do all these things, we will in turn attract the best possible immigrants. Immigration has a snowball effect. One young couple may immigrate. Soon afterwards they may be followed by their parents, then by their brothers and sisters, until finally their friends also follow in their footsteps.

We must also ask why people leave their country of origin. The main reasons, I believe, are low wages and high taxes. Between 1950 and 1960 a skilled worker in South Africa earned double the salary he would have earned in Europe. However, they are earning less in South Africa than they would in Europe. Computer staff, for example, in Australia and America earn double the salaries they would earn here in South Africa. On an income of R28 000 a year, we in South Africa pay 68% towards income tax. I am now also taking into account the concessions granted by the hon. the Minister of Finance in this year’s budget speech. In the USA, on the other hand, one has to earn $74 500 a year before one reaches a 50% taxation.

Now, what do we find if we look at professional people? I am now referring to the so-called brain drain everybody is talking about. During 1974-’75 a total number of 1 603 professional people left South Africa. This number increased to 5 654 during 1976-’77, and between January and June 1978, a total number of 1 792 professional people left this country. Only during the three months between July and September last year 330 professional people left South Africa. It is interesting to note that medical doctors did not account for the highest percentage of those that left. According to The Star of 21 March 1978 engineers topped the bill with 764. Educationists followed with 348. Then came accountants with 313, and only then came the doctors and dentists with 244, the lowest in that particular scale.

Last year alone 141 skilled workers in the industrial sector left with their families for Australia, and one-third of them were members of the Coloured race. We therefore need to know what the reasons are.

In conclusion I therefore want to call for an official survey to examine certain aspects and ascertain certain facts from emigrants in particular. Firstly, why are they leaving South Africa? Secondly, what are the age groups involved, because it is a question of whether the young people are going or the old people are going? If it is the young people who are going, we need to know why this is so. Thirdly, what work will they get? What is it that is drawing them overseas? Fourthly, what pay are they going to get? Are they bettering their positions? Also, what taxes are they going to pay in comparison with ours? Fifthly, how much capital are they taking out with them when they leave the country, because this affects our entire economy? Lastly, why did 63,1% of the immigrants who came to South Africa go back to the United Kingdom and Europe? I think this is a rather startling figure.

In relation to the figures given, particularly in regard to immigration, one must bear in mind the events that have taken place in Rhodesia. Over the last few years, in particular, we have attracted mostly Rhodesians to this country and are falling very short as far as attracting immigrants from Europe and other countries is concerned.

In conclusion let me therefore say that we have a lot to do. So let us get on with it and try to make this a country that will be so attractive to all that they come to this country and remain here.

Mr. Chairman, to begin with I wish to express my heartfelt appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the confidence he has displayed in me, and to the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Durban Central for their congratulations and good wishes. I am only hoping that I shall be doing my best at all times. However, I shall leave it to hon. members to be the judge of what is my best. In the short time at my disposal I shall not deal with the comment by the hon. member for Hillbrow on immigration at this stage. He is going to the Other Place, but on his return I shall give him an adequate reply on immigration aspects, because I know that there are hon. members on my side of the House as well who still wish to deal with immigration.

I just wish to refer first of all to the Government Printing Works Vote that is also under discussion at the moment I have to direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that with effect from 1 April of this year a new system of financing for the Government Printing Works came into operation. Up to 31 March of this year, funds were voted by Parliament every year to defray the expenditure of the Government Printing Works. However, since the Government Printing Works renders services to virtually all the departments by way of printing work, stationery, etc., and receives payment for those services from the departments concerned, the departments made provision in their budgets for such expenditure to be incurred by them. Provision was also made in the budget to vote funds for defraying the expenditure of the Government Printing Works. The result was that at the end of the period, the money which the Government Printing Works had obtained from the various departments was paid over to the State Revenue Fund. As from 1 April we have a new dispensation. In order to eliminate provision being made twice in the budget for the same service, the Government Printing Works may henceforth, with the consent of the Treasury, utilize its revenue to defray its expenditure. This may happen in terms of the provisions of section 11A of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1957. So in future provision will no longer be made under this Vote for funds for the Government Printing Works. Hon. members will not find comparative figures for this year in the printed figures. Consequently they may want to put questions in that regard. This year, an amount of R4,8 million is still being voted to make provision for the work of the Government Printing Works for the first few months of the year, and until the money it is going to charge for its services, starts flowing in. In future, the same policy will apply in the sense that the profits made by the Government Printing Works on its work, will have to be paid into the State Revenue Fund.

I wish to point out that notwithstanding the financing methods of the past, the Government Printing Works has always been managed on a business basis. Consequently one finds that in the Auditor-General’s report there is a detailed balance sheet and a profit and loss sheet with regard to the Government Printing Works, unlike the position with regard to other Government departments. This practice will be continued in future and there will therefore not be another system of bookkeeping. The new dispensation will also be in accordance with the new system of target budgeting encouraged by the Treasury.

For the further information of hon. members, it is to be noted that the Government Printing Works itself undertakes approximately two-thirds of the work it is given, while the remaining third is given out on contract. The monetary value of the one-third of the work given out on contract, amounts to approximately R6 million or R7 million per annum.

Who prints The Citizen at present?

The work from the S.A. Railways, the Post Office and other semi-Government institutions, is not undertaken by the Government Printing Works, with the exception of course of the security work sent to the Government Printing Works for dispatch.

The Government Printing Works has an establishment of 1 100, of whom 935 are factory workers who are not Public Servants.

They belong to the trade union of the printing industry.

In view of the fact that very little attention is devoted to the Government Printing Works Vote in this House, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to say that we are very proud of the work done by the Government Printing Works. Today, the Government Printer has one of the most modem printing works in the world. It is the most efficient printing works in South Africa and is being managed extremely well. Consequently we should like to express our appreciation to the Government Printer and his staff for the services they are rendering in this regard.

I wish to commence my reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Sandton by telling him that I appreciate most sincerely his having said today that he was satisfied with the way in which the Secretary for the Interior was exercising the powers vested in him by section 5(4)(c) of the Act and with the way in which he was exercising his powers in this regard. That, I think, has brought us to the end of an era in which we had protracted, unpleasant debates on classifications in this House which did nobody any good. Consequently I am grateful for this positive note sounded by the hon. member for Sandton.

He put questions to which the hon. the Minister replied in part, but I wish to point out to him that the new identity document we are going to issue, will be in the form of a booklet of which I have a copy at hand. Now that we men are wearing waistcoats again, such a booklet can be carried in the pocket of one’s waistcoat. We shall save a great deal of money on this, money which we shall be able to utilize in our decentralization effort. I have been told that as a result of the printing of this smaller booklet, we shall cut expenditure by between R400 000 and R500 000 as a saving on paper alone.

You should have done that long ago.

Moreover, the booklet will be printed on paper on which there can be no erasure and if one were to try and erase anything, the whole thing would be a “blot”. So we are going to make a good job of this, and the booklets will be issued at the earliest opportunity, hopefully as from the second half of this year. At this stage we shall not be able to replace the old documents; perhaps we shall be able to do so in the distant future as and when their replacement becomes essential in that people apply for other documents. Therefore, it is not the idea to withdraw the documents of the large format that have already been issued.

The hon. member also referred to the question of decentralization, particularly as far as the electoral system was concerned. In that regard, too, I have a word to add. I want to tell the hon. member that it is absolutely essential for us, as he said too, to proceed with this decentralization effort at the earliest opportunity. Now that the decision has come from the hon. the Minister, all of us—and I am inviting the parties and the organizations to do so—must co-operate enthusiastically to make a success of this decentralized system. In 1974, at the time of the previous general election in Great Britain, the hon. member for Durban Point and I went to have a look at how the British system operated in practice on election day. What we saw there made a profound impression on us. In our report to the Government on that issue, we pointed out that it would benefit us greatly if we were to re-examine and modernize our system. As far as our system was concerned, we were really still at the ox-wagon stage. Like the Americans, we have an election lasting for months on end and the various parties spend thousands of rands unnecessarily on postal votes and special votes. We could cut expenditure immensely if we were to adopt the tried and tested system of a democratic country such as England.

I wish to point out that we have already effected certain changes. In the by-election in Swellendam and Beaufort West, special voters’ cards were sent out in consequence of a recommendation the hon. member for Durban Point and I myself were instrumental in having included in the report of the Select Committee. I should be pleased to hear the comments of the parties on this. By means of this voter’s card, the voter is advised immediately after an election has been called, that his name appears on the voters’ roll. His voter’s number is supplied, as well as the hours and the day on which voting will take place, and the place where he can vote. Such a card immediately creates an election spirit. The Select Committee heard evidence that it would take the State approximately 14 days to get this card in the post. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to afford the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you very much. In future, we shall be able to send each of the 2 500 000 voters in the country such a card within 45 hours. I wish to point out that a master voters’ roll such as that of Beaufort West, on which 9 000 names appear, can be printed in 59 seconds—therefore in less than a minute. The paper that is fed through the laser beam apparatus runs through the apparatus at a speed of 72 inches per second. This has immense possibilities and I want to ask hon. members to help us tackle this enthusiastically. In the first place, this does not only concern the voters’ rolls and the good things that can flow from this for all of us who have something to do with elections.

It also concerns a service we can render to the public of South Africa by decentralizing more. We want to render a service to people in, for example, Vanrhynsdorp and Loeriesfontein as far as the normal services of the Department of the Interior are concerned, for example in respect of passports, work permits, residence permits, matters relating to births, marriages and deaths, and identity documents. A man may be faced with a problem far from the nearest election office, and now he first has to write a letter. We have an immense problem following up these cases and rendering a proper service to the people. On the one hand we want to take a service to the people and on the other hand we want to see whether, by means of the decentralization of the system, we would not be able to overcome the problems we are encountering at present with the compilation of the population register, the issuing of identity documents, the finalization of inquiries with regard to applications for identity documents, changes of address, etc. Hon. members have no idea of the problems we have encountered up to now and which we have had to overcome by making a tremendous effort during the past year to obtain this information from the public. I think once we have done these two basic things, we should be able to establish far truer and up-to-date population register, one which, in turn, would enable us to compile a voters’ roll on the basis of the latest particulars and printed on a street basis so that the political parties and the State might be able to save millions of rands. I have calculated that by doing a few things, we could save approximately R1 million every year on the present practices, and that apart from the large number of staff that could be released at head office, we could utilize this saving for the decentralization of this work. That is the reason why the subcommittee appointed by the hon. the Minister is trying to see whether it cannot bring the activities of the Department of the Interior to the level where they affect the activities of local authorities and where, for example, we can employ the services of someone in the office of the town clerk or the divisional council on a part-time basis to render services to us for which we can compensate the local authority concerned. In co-operation with the local authorities, we shall also be able to obtain important information such as addresses appearing on water accounts, and also all the other information the local authorities have at their disposal and which we can use to bring our registers up to date.

I think the whole object is that we should obtain a system in South Africa that has already been tried and tested in other countries where it has been in use for years, so that we may conduct an election within a matter of weeks, save the State and political parties great expense, and restrict these political activities—which are encountered to a far lesser extent in other countries—which cost political parties a lot of money, to the minimum. We may also obtain higher poll percentages as a result of the fresh information supplied. In fact, I wonder whether the cards sent out before the by-elections in Swellendam and Beaufort West have not already contributed to the high percentage poll that was obtained under very difficult circumstances. For the time being I content myself with having said this. Later, in dealing with immigration, I shall reply further to hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his accession to the department and on his performance here. We as his colleagues in Parliament, and in particular we as Whips, have learned to know him as a very able, keen and loyal colleague and we therefore know that he is going to make just as much of a success of his new work as he made of his work as Chief Whip of the governing party.

For a number of years now there is a matter I have wanted to discuss, and I wish to deal with it now. Three years ago I approached the then Minister of the Interior, Dr. Mulder, and told him that I might want to raise this matter in the form of a member’s motion. After he and I had discussed the matter, I thought it wise not to introduce the member’s motion. At the beginning of this session, too, I discussed the possibility with the hon. the Minister of the Interior.

At this stage I wish to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister once again for the understanding and sympathetic way in which he discussed this particular matter, which is of great concern to me. After I had discussed the possibility of a member’s motion with him, I decided once again not to introduce the motion. However, I have decided to raise this matter in this debate. I feel very strongly about the retention of the present national flag of the Republic of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

In the life of a nation there are several characteristics which distinguish an independent nation. I want to say that the first is its own language. A nation that does not have its own language is not a self-respecting and a respected nation in the world. In this regard I think I can state that the South African nation is in the unique and fortunate position of having a language that not only came into being owing to the fact that “every soil creates its own language”, as the saying goes, but which was also born out of the soil of the Republic of South Africa and has developed among our people into the language it is today, namely the Afrikaans language. This language is used by more or less 60% of the White population in the Republic. The White population of South Africa are also in the fortunate position of having another—I am not saying a second— official language, which is used by approximately 40% of the White population of South Africa. We are also in the fortunate position that this language is a recognized world language, apart from the fact that it is the mother tongue of 40% of the Whites of the Republic of South Africa. This is a world language which, to South Africans, both Afrikaans speaking and English speaking, opens channels of communication to the outside world.

In the second place, I wish to state that to a self-respecting nation it is a compelling necessity to have its own territory. The territory of the people of South Africa consists of the four provinces. The first province is the vast Cape Province, in which one half of the population speaks Afrikaans and the other half English. The Cape Province had an official flag for years, namely the British flag. Our second province is the Orange Free State, in which approximately 80% of the population speaks Afrikaans and approximately 20% English. For many years the official flag of this province was the Free State “Vierkleur”. The third province is Natal, where the official language is predominantly English. For many years, the flag of this province was the British flag, the Union Jack. The fourth province is the fine province of Transvaal, in which the language is predominantly Afrikaans. In this province the official national flag was for many years the Transvaal “Vierkleur”.

The third essential requirement for a respected nation concerns its idealism and its faith in its Creator, in itself and in its continued existence. The fourth requirement for a nation, I should say, is its pride; not its arrogance, but its pride. In my view, two essentials are necessary to demonstrate that pride. The first of these is its national anthem. We have this in the Call of South Africa. The second is its national flag. We have that in the form of our own Republican flag.

We have that in the form of our own Republican flag.

In the last few minutes I wish to dwell in particular on the present Republican flag of South Africa. This flag originated in the years between 1920 and 1930, years I should like to regard and describe as the “years of suffering”, the years of storm and stress in the life of our country and its people, the years of suffering, of depression and droughts, when the rural areas of our country shed many of their Afrikaans-speaking people and these people had to find their way to the cities, to ncounter another strange and difficult world there and lose their footing all over again, and they had to make fresh efforts to find their feet. In the midst of all this suffering and growth, in these years of storm and stress, our forebears came together—the hon. members will find that in the Flag Act of 1927 of the late Dr. Malan—and they gave us the Republican flag as we know it today.

Against the background of that flag—the Orange White and Blue—they gave a résumé of the history, the culture, the love, the loyalty and also, I believe, the language of the two official language groups of our country. I, as a Transvaler and as an Afrikaner, wish to state today that I am particularly proud and particularly grateful that the flag of my forebears, namely the Transvaal Vierkleur, has been perpetuated in the present national flag. I think every Free Stater will and should say that he is grateful and proud that the national flag of his forebears, of Christiaan de Wet and Marthinus T. Steyn, has been woven into and perpetuated in the present flag of the Republic of South Africa. Since I, as an Afrikaner, take pride in and love what is my own and would not exchange them for anything, I have some understanding, and therefore believe, that the English-speaking section of the population of the Republic of South Africa also love what is their own and that they are therefore desirous and equally desirous of having their past, their history, their language, their culture and their idealism remain part of the present national flag as it has been woven into it and epitomized in the flag of their forebears.

I wish to conclude by stating that this is the flag with which we have walked along the same road together for the past 50 years. There were years of suffering, but there were also years of joy, festive years that we experienced during that period. In those times, I believe, we learned to love this flag and this symbol. Consequently I believe that the official flag of today is not only the flag of the past 50 years, but that it is also the flag of the present and the flag of the future. As the two White language groups of South Africa, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people, will fight shoulder to shoulder for South Africa now and in future, when national security and national interests are at stake and when politics are not at issue, they will look anew with love, respect and a sense of loyalty at the flag that is also a reflection and interpretation of the history of South Africa, of the path of South Africa that we have trodden up to the present.

Mr. Chairman, not only do I wish to congratulate the hon. member on an excellent speech, but I also wish to congratulate him on having the courage of his convictions to be the first today to state a point of view after there have already been attempts over the past weekend to sow suspicion with regard to the future of our national flag. I agree with the hon. member that our flag is a symbol of great things. It is our want to protect everything related to tradition. There is a great deal of tradition behind our national flag. I want to agree with the hon. member that we should make every endeavour to retain this national flag as the flag of South Africa. In my opinion it is premature at this stage to intimate that in view of the fact that we are on the eve of a new constitutional dispensation, our national flag is going to be changed as well.

On behalf of my colleagues I should like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the additional portfolio that has been allocated to him. It was my intention to say, with reference to the English expression “a square peg in a round hole”, that the hon. the Deputy Minister was definitely not a “square peg in a round hole”. But before I could tell this to the House, he proved this afternoon that he was most decidedly the right man in the right place. As a former political organizer I want to suggest that there is no better man for that position.

He has defeated you in an election, not so?

The hon. the Minister refers to his having defeated me in an election, but in the days when we opposed each other—in actual fact we did not oppose each other because we were neighbours—he took Parow and I retained Vasco.

I also want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the example of the book of life he showed this House. In my opinion this is a step in the right direction to save costs. I am pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in addition to the reference thereto in the annual report, gave us the assurance that there would not be any large scale effort to issue new books of life to everybody, but that the books of life would be replaced from time to time as and when it became necessary to effect changes. In this way, too, there can be a great saving in costs. It was also encouraging to learn from the report that the backlog with regard to the issuing of these documents had been eliminated.

In this regard I want to convey our sincere congratulations to the department. Over the years the public simply could not understand why they had to wait so long before they could obtain their documents. In some cases the documents had to be obtained as a matter of urgency and although one tried to explain that there was a problem in this regard as a result of accumulation, the public simply did not want to understand this and believed that the officials were delaying the process. Consequently I am pleased that we have now reached the stage where the daily demand can be satisfied.

I also wish to raise another matter which is near to my heart, and that is the staff position in the department. In this regard I am thinking in particular of the staff position in the Port Elizabeth office. In that office the number of staff is restricted to the absolute minimum at the present time. I am not raising this matter because people have come and complained to me since I am an MP, but I am doing this on the grounds of my own observation. The staff in that office are working under immense pressure and they are experiencing serious problems. In view of the future new dispensation, I trust that there will be sufficient staff to implement this system successfully. The hon. the Minister said that the new proposals were directed at making the electoral system more streamlined. He also said that the new dispensation would eliminate postal voting. In my view this is an excellent idea. If my information is correct, almost one-third of the voters who voted in the recent by-election in Swellendam, voted by means of postal votes or special votes.

And what does that cost?

It costs the various parties and the Government a fortune, but apart from the costs involved, I want to inquire whether it is not the objective to restrict postal votes and special votes to the absolute minimum. I am afraid it is becoming the practice more and more to issue postal votes and special votes. I am pleased to learn that efforts are going to be made to combat this. However, no matter how good this system might be, if we do not place the onus on the voter to see to it at all times that he is correctly registered, we are not going to solve this problem. As the situation is at present, nobody worries if he is not registered at his correct address. This is so because he knows that nothing can happen to him and that no steps can be taken against him. The Electoral Act provides for a fine, but that provision is simply never used and nobody is ever brought to court charged with an offence of this nature. I want to quote two examples to the House in this regard. I know of a PFP candidate who, in the recent general election, voted in the constituency in which he was a candidate, whereas he had been resident in another constituency for a period of at least five years. An objection was lodged to his name. He did not react to the first notice, however, and I do not know what happened with regard to the second notice.

This brings me to the other matter. When an objection is in fact lodged, the staff actually have to go from pillar to post before they can remove a person from the voters’ roll on the grounds of his not being resident where he is registered. I think we should facilitate things much more for the staff.

I know of a PFP candidate in the last general election who, only after the election, registered himself in the constituency in which he stood as a candidate. He owns fixed property there, but he does not live there. Surely these are not municipal elections, but parliamentary and provincial elections.

In a nutshell, my plea today is that we should do something to place the onus on the voter so that he may know when he changes his address that it is his duty to complete the necessary documents. Then our identity documents and the voters’ rolls will always be up to date.

I want to conclude by saying that we welcome the idea of voters’ rolls being compiled in street order. This is going to save the political parties a great deal of time, effort and cost. We should welcome this if it could indeed happen.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that if South Africa had more Opposition members such as he, things really would improve for us. I think that I am speaking on behalf of my namesake sitting in front of me when I say that I, too, appreciate the fine words expressed by him with reference to the hon. member for Meyerton.

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Sandton. When I spoke earlier in this debate, I said that I should really like to have known on what principles the hon. member for Sandton based his standpoint in respect of control. I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that, during the PFP’s previous congress, the young Turks in his party expressed themselves as being absolutely opposed to any form of control over publications. This is what I heard. A few minutes ago the hon. the Minister replied very well and put a very good question to the hon. member for Sandton when he wanted to know from him whether he would allow us to approve the distribution of anti-Semitic literature in South Africa. The hon. member said that he would have no control over it.

He said: That particular document.

Is the hon. member in favour of exercising control over literature which is aimed at Jews in South Africa?

I am certainly against… Ah well, I shall speak later.

Very well, the hon. member will speak later. I now want to repeat a question that was put by the hon. the Minister. Does the hon. member want us to have control in South Africa over literature which is anti-Semitic? Does he accept that principle?

In respect of the PFP’s congress, I want to tell him that the younger Progs at the congress were absolutely opposed to any form of control. I want to know what guidance the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Sandton are going to give in this regard. The hon. member for Hillbrow put his standpoint very clearly to us.

On page 38 of the annual report of the Department of the Interior, under the heading “Nature of publications or objects submitted—Publications possibly endangering State security and/or of a communistic nature”, we find that 669 cases of this nature were dealt with in 1977. In 1978 this number was 1 349. Consequently it has exactly doubled. I want to know from the hon. member for Sandton, if he is a responsible member and the PFP is a responsible party that would like to govern this country, what, in view of the anarchism and the spreading of communism throughout the world, his standpoint is in respect of publications endangering State security. He should also define what he and his party regard as endangering State security. I want to refer the hon. member to the Publications Board in respect of the increasing number of articles endangering State security that are appearing at our universities. I want to refer to Wits, the University of Natal and Ikeys. Today I want to ask the hon. member for Sandton, his party and the leaders of those particular universities this: What are we in South Africa going to do in respect of the fact that people who want anarchy, all sorts of political crime and communism in South Africa, also want to reach young people as far as these matters endangering State security are concerned? This is very important A publication of this nature appeared at the University of Pretoria as well. The principal, as well as the students’ council, took immediate action and said that they did not allow that type of thing on their campus. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the PFP will, as far as this specific matter is concerned, have to indicate to us very clearly what standpoint they adopt.

Furthermore it is interesting to note how superficial their arguments are when the PFP discusses the control endorsed by the NP and all other upright people, when the PFP discusses hard pornography, as it is referred to by the hon. the Minister, as well as other publications endangering State security. I want to refer to, for example, publications such as The Voice, Staff Riders and a few others. Not one of these publications contains advertisements. Now one wonders just who finances those publications. Where do the funds come from? Who are the people behind those publications, and what are their objectives?

Since taking over this portfolio, the hon. the Minister has adopted a very balanced and sober standpoint, not only with regard to literature endangering State security—in respect of which, he, as a good democrat, said that the security of the State had to be protected against these anarchists—but also with regard to pornography. Now I briefly want to refer once more to the authors themselves. The hon. the Minister did his best to, as he put it, defuse the situation. He did his best to create a situation in which literary people could write freely, but in which they also had to take into account the specific milieu in which we have to operate. No decent writer can really say that he is being restricted. Personally I, too, would not allow certain things here and there. This is merely my personal standpoint, my personal attitude. There are things which I should not like my children to read. There are things which, I think, young people ought not to read. I believe that many of the things that have been written, are so absolutely filthy that no decent person would want to touch them.

The hon. the Minister quoted here what Professor Johan Heyns had to say in this regard. After all, Professor Heyns is a balanced person, someone who teaches Christian ethics. I want to agree 100% with Professor Heyns in what he had to say. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Sandton— in other fields, particularly when Black people are involved, he invokes his Christian principles time and again—what his opinion is of this type of pronouncement. When one listens critically to what literary people have to say, one sometimes wonders whether there are not writers and poets who do not really have talent but who merely write sensational and antisocial things, things against the Government and against the existing order, merely to be popular and to draw the attention of the community. After the incident with Magersfontein, O Magersfontein—a case to which hon. members like to refer— Professor A. P. Grove said—

I agree with the hon. the Minister that the word “censorship” is a wrong approach. It is not what we apply in South Africa in any event Professor Grove uses the term all the same—

To me this is a special argument, and I also want to express my appreciation to the professor, particularly when he says that people who want to play politics with this, and who want to involve the academy and he himself in the matter, are making a mistake.

Now I also want to refer to what Professor F. E. J. van Rensburg has to say. I do not know whether he is related to Horace. In any event, this professor says a very interesting thing. In a newspaper report he says the following—

He goes on to say—

As a member of Parliament, I, too, am only an ordinary person, a person with his own particular norms and standpoints; my own particular expectations of my family and relatives. Now, however, this esteemed professor tells the theologians and the people of the church that they need no longer be concerned about their prophetic, priestly or regal task, because having written a book, the literary people lay down the norms for theology, for the church and all other standpoints applicable in society. I then begin to ask myself—and the hon. the Minister must pardon one for becoming somewhat angry at times about these things, particularly when one has had to deal with this type of thing oneself—whether a degree of arrogance has not started setting in among our literary people and literary critics and whether they are not beginning to place themselves in a type of ivory tower by saying that those who write and those who judge know everything. They say Dr. Vorster and the church ought not to talk about it. The esteemed professor starts the article by saying—

But if one is a professor, one should at least know the basic principles of science. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to be able to speak directly after the speech by the hon. member for Rissik. Of course, since I have no quarrel with him or what he had to say, I want to associate myself with him and I want to come to what was said here earlier by the hon. member for Sandton.

The hon. member for Sandton saw fit to launch another attack this afternoon on the norms being applied to the control of publications. He spoke scornfully of “one man’s norms” which were supposedly being forced upon the whole country. But this is not true. I refer the hon. member to the annual report of the department. On page 10, under the heading “Publications Appeal Board”, it is clearly stated—

Surely this demonstrates that not only one man’s norms apply here. I also refer him to page 14 of the report—

Viewed in this light the hon. member’s derogatory remark about “one man’s norms” is surely completely unfounded.

The hon. member for Sandton says he is not in favour of pornography. Does he not agree that this of necessity implies that there should be some form of publications control? The hon. member need only nod his head if he agrees with me that there must of necessity be some form of publications control. If he then accepts that there must be a system of publications control, this also of necessity implies that someone, or some authority will have to interpret the views of the community in this regard. The question which then arises, is whose view should apply. Whose norms should be decisive? The hon. member for Sandton was “kind” enough to say that my norms could not apply because I had allegedly never aspired to any edifying things. In all modesty and fairness I want to concede to the hon. member that if aspiring to edifying things means writing derogatory articles about one’s country in foreign publications, articles which are harmful to your country, then I have indeed never done so. I leave those edifying things to the hon. member for Sandton. But I want to state categorically that the norms of the hon. member for Sandton cannot apply at all, because if they were to apply as norms, we should also have to accept the norms displayed in that disgraceful article which he wrote for Punch. [Interjections.]

A broad spectrum of opinions and norms concerning publications control exists in our country: From extreme right to ultra-left, from those who examine the matter with an over-insular approach to those with an ultraliberal approach. I believe that the criterion which should be applied, should be aimed at striking a balance between these two extremes at all times.

Speaking of balance, I want to state that the hon. the Minister is pre-eminently a person who in all respects acts in a balanced way. We heard him say himself this afternoon that he was a moderate person, with regard to publications control as well, and that he dissociated himself from the far-left or far-right approach. I want to go further and say that the same also applies to the Director of Publications. He is a person whom we have come to know over the years as a balanced person, as a person who does not hold with extremes in any form. That is why I believe that we in this country should consider ourselves fortunate to have publications control in the hands of people with such an approach.

The hon. the Minister referred this afternoon to the fact that he had already effected important changes to publication control by way of statutory amendments and in so doing had succeeded in preventing a possible confrontation on publications control.

If one examines public entertainment, one finds that it is now also subject to the imposition of certain restrictions instead of the whole presentation having to be rejected. It has happened that in an entire entertainment presentation there has perhaps been one scene which could not be regarded as permissible and that consequently the entire presentation came under the axe. In this respect the adjustment has been made that in future a restriction may be imposed so that the presentation as such may proceed. In the same way other concessions and accommodations have also been made, to which the hon. the Minister referred.

Unfortunately it is also a fact that inadmissible things have deliberately been produced …

Yes, as was done with oranges.

… which then have to be cut, but for that very reason give publicity to the presentation in question and serve as an advertisement for it. It is a fact that some people will abuse any concession made in this regard, to achieve their actual purpose of giving greater publicity and gaining greater market for the product they want to let loose on the community.

The hon. the Minister also referred to the fact that he had on occasion acted in the interests of the Indian community, too, by giving recognition to their religious views. However, if one reads or hears the criticism which is being heaped on the hon. the Minister, one gets the impression that the hon. the Minister was only out to force the opinion of one section of the population upon all the other sections of the population. I want to state categorically that this type of criticism is devoid of all truth. I also want to state categorically that the hon. the Minister is out to respect the standpoints, views and norms concerning publications control of all population groups in this country at all times. If it is expected of the hon. the Minister to allow hard pornography, blasphemy and violence to slip through his fingers, then too much is being expected of him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Mossel Bay and also the hon. member for Rissik will forgive me if I do not follow up their arguments, because I do not intend talking along their line of argument at all this afternoon. I should, however, like to say in all sincerity to the hon. member for Meyerton, who unfortunately is not here at the moment, that I admire him for the way in which he spoke about our flag this afternoon. He spoke about it with a great measure of balance and delicacy, and it is a subject that affects us all. I am pleased to see that he has just returned to the Chamber. I feel he is to be commended on the way in which he handled this issue. I feel he has done his country a great service here this afternoon. I think he has gone a long way towards burying this issue before anything really comes of it. It was sad to see it emerge, as it did yesterday, in the Sunday Press. Obviously, the hon. member speaks for the majority of his party and I know that I certainly speak for the entire NRP when I say: Leave our flag; we are proud of it, all of us, for many, many reasons, but mainly because it is our South African flag.

Having said that, I should like to turn my attention to the hon. the Deputy Minister and congratulate him on his speech this afternoon on electoral matters. Let me say, Sir, that enthusiasm is infectious and that the enthusiasm he showed this afternoon was certainly of the type that is infectious. I think he made it clear that we can look forward to a streamlining of the election process of this country, and, believe you me, Sir, it comes none too soon.

However, I am afraid that my news for the hon. the Minister is not so good. I want to say to him that we in these benches find ourselves a little hard-pressed to accept his explanation in respect of the ordinance referred to by the hon. member for Durban Central. The hon. the Minister quoted section 89 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act which deals with provincial ordinances. I want to point out that that particular section gives the State President the right to withhold assent for a proposed ordinance, but that it does not give him the right to alter or change an ordinance and then return it after signature. Let me quote the relevant subsection—

There is no provision made for the alteration of an ordinance and the return of it to the province concerned. I am sorry to say that the hon. the Minister will have to tell us a better story before he will convince us of that.

I will oblige.

I want to deal with the subject of immigration in the main. Immigration is important to this country. It is, in fact, important to any country. We all know that the Government made mistakes after 1948, and we all know that the. Government realized the error of its ways and that the years from 1962 to 1976 saw tremendous strides in immigration. We had a healthy balance over those years. There were increases of 30 000, 28 000, 29 000 and even 40 000 immigrants, as opposed to emigrants. The down-swing came in the latter half of 1977, and during the first half of 1978 the down-swing was certainly alarming. I believe that that was when the chickens started to run. I know that the hon. member for Hillbrow gave all sorts of reasons why he felt things went wrong, but, quite honestly, I think the major reason was that, as I said, the chickens started to run.

Some people call them Progs.

Some people might do that I think that both the 1820 Settlers’ Association and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie are doing a tremendous job of work in bringing immigrants to South Africa. I want to agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow that we need more immigrants, that it is quantity we must concern ourselves with. I, however, want to draw the attention of the Committee to the question of the quality of the immigrant we are bringing to South Africa. I want to bring to the attention of the Committee a problem which has reared its rather ugly head, and which is being brought before the Institute of Credit Management in Southern Africa by its Natal division. I refer to the problem of immigrants, especially from Great Britain, who are absconding and leaving unpaid bills behind them. In some instances, I may say, they are leaving substantial debts behind them and are causing tremendous concern in the business sector. Under the present passport regulations any immigrant can book an airline ticket and fly out of the country. He need never return and he can leave behind him any debts he may have incurred without any questions being asked. He has come in on his original passport and he flies out on that passport; he is allowed to leave the country. The cost of litigation, once such a person who has left unpaid debts behind him is traced, can be very substantial. As a result of this, most of these bad debts are written off, because of the cost of recovery is such that it is just not worth it. The total cost of these bad debts to this country must be quite substantial.

It is submitted by the Natal division of the Institute of Credit Management that effective regulations could be introduced in order to cut out this unnecessary cost to the business sector and to the country generally. They recommend, firstly, that all non-South Africans, that is to say, those holding foreign passports, should be subject to a special clearance by the Receiver of Revenue and Immigration and Customs prior to their departure overseas. If such a person’s name appears on a special blacklist, he cannot leave the country until such time as he has been cleared. How such a blacklist will be drawn up is self-explanatory. It is suggested that the attorney acting in cases of debt should advise the Receiver of Revenue, and other departments, accordingly if he feels that a debtor who owes certain moneys on unpaid accounts, may skip the country. The departments can then blacklist that person. So, it follows that until such a person has settled all his outstanding debts, his name will not be removed from this blacklist and he will find a measure of difficulty in obtaining permission to catch an aircraft, skip the country and return to his country of origin. It may be said that this will present problems in respect of all travellers, but it will not present problems in respect of South Africans because they are naturally not going to be affected by this. A person who could be affected here, however, is the Receiver of Revenue himself, because the Receiver of Revenue could be owed a lot of money by the person who is absconding and leaving the country.

These are some rough suggested proposals in respect of this matter and I submit them to the hon. the Minister for his attention. I would ask him to comment on this, because this is exercising the minds of the credit controllers and of the business sector in no small fashion.

In the minute or so at my disposal I want to deal with something that will affect the hon. the Deputy Minister—he is the one who has spoken about electoral matters—and that is the voters’ roll and the deletion of the names of deceased persons from it. At the moment our voters’ roll is a little like the Springbok rugby team: It is extremely difficult to get into it and, as they say, it is a damned sight harder to get out of it.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to deal with the hon. member for Umhlanga’s remarks about immigration, but I do want to refer in passing to the reference he made to the section in the amending legislation relating to the local authority ordinance of Natal, an ordinance which was ultra vires and which was altered by the Government. The plea of the hon. member reminded me very much of the practice of tacking in the old British constitutional history. The hon. member is probably as aware of it as I am that, after the establishment of the principle that financial legislation should only be dealt with by the Commons in line with the principle of taxation on the basis of representation, it was fairly common practice for the British monarch to tack clauses onto financial legislation and then try to get it through in this way, because the financial legislation was imperative. This is basically what has happened here.

*The practice of tacking an unrelated clause onto an ordinance is something which has been kept out of that process in British constitutional history over the years and which cannot be allowed in our country either. The fact simply remains that the law advisers said that the specific clause was ultra vires. The hon. the Minister, too, specifically said so. It is very clear that the Provincial Administration of Natal did not want to have the entire amending ordinance rejected and therefore only the specific clause was left out. However, I do not want to take this any further. The approach of the hon. member for Umhlanga was basically the same as that of the hon. member for Durban Central, who said that the action of the central Government could be regarded as an insult to the Natal Provincial Administration. The hon. member for Durban Central also referred to the member of the Provincial Council for Pinetown. Surely the hon. member has been in this House longer than our colleague of Pinetown has been in the Provincial Council of Natal. The hon. member also has much more access to this document than a member of the Provincial Council. I certainly do not expect the hon. member for Durban Central to ride on the back of the member of the Provincial Council for Pinetown. The hon. member says all these things about the way a provincial administration has been treated and insulted, but I should like to refer him to the provincial subsidies allocated under Vote No. 14, “Treasury”, to the Transvaal and Natal respectively. As regards the Transvaal, the transfer payments for 1979-’80 are 7,4% higher than those for 1978-’79. With regard to Natal, however, the transfer payments for 1979-’80 are 9,4% higher than those for 1978-’79. The provision made by the Government for the capital requirements of the Transvaal shows a growth of 7%, while the growth in the case of Natal is 14,5%. I can understand that a member of a provincial council who does not have these schedules at his disposal can say such things, but for the hon. member for Durban Central, who has been sitting here for years and who has these facts at his disposal, to come and speak here about an insult to Natal, about Natal being neglected, is absolutely outrageous. [Interjections.] If one wants to look at the treatment of Natal, I think the time has come for us to look at that party’s treatment of the Natal Provincial Council. We should look at the abuse of the provincial government institution in Natal by the party of that hon. member.

Such as?

We are now living in a time of constitutional change. Over the past three years or more, this side of the House has examined our constitutional position in South Africa—and I do not want to elaborate on this; I am merely mentioning it for the record. Investigations were carried out within this party. The recommendations resulting from those investigations were presented to the caucus and to the provincial congresses of our party. During the last general election they were presented to the voters of South Africa. The legislation resulting from those recommendations was referred in this House, before the First Reading, to a Select Committee of both Houses. In other words, as far as the whole question of our further constitutional development is concerned, it has been the subject of in-depth study on the part of this side of the House, now on the part of all sides of the House, and the subject of a whole general election.

The hon. member for Durban Point, the leader of the NRP, praised the Government’s handling of the constitutional proposals and said that the appointment of a Joint Select Committee was the right thing to do, but while the whole question of the highest Government level has been investigated over a period of three years, and while it is still being investigated, the members of that party have rushed through legislation in an ill-considered and over-hasty manner, legislation aimed at making the municipalities in Natal multiracial. They want to establish multiracial municipalities in that province. It may be asked why the hon. members of that party did not carry out similar investigations or wait until they could have the benefit of the investigation by the Yeld Committee, which examined local authorities among the Coloured population, or of the Slatter Committee, which conducted the same investigation in Natal and the Transvaal with regard to the Indian population. One asks why this great haste is necessary. The legislation concerns local authorities which affect a cardinal aspect of their own party policy. I do not want to dwell on that now; we can return to it later. If one looks at what the member of the Executive Committee in the Natal Provincial Council said with regard to this legislation and why no time should be lost in enacting it, it is interesting to note that in his speech he alleged that there were already four full-fledged local authorities in the Indian community in Natal. He also said that it had been apparent over the years that not all town councils treated their Indian and Coloured neighbourhood affairs committees in the same way. Some treated their neighbourhood affairs committees almost as full-fledged town councils, while others gave them no power at all. If the hon. member for Umhlanga doubts this, I can quote page 7 of Mr. Waterston’s speech for his benefit.

I am merely listening.

So these neighbourhood affairs committees in fact remained “little more than what they originally were, glorified ratepayers’ associations”. Because of that, a certain degree of frustration developed amongst certain representatives of Indian areas in Natal. What did that party do in that regard? Did they try to ascertain how they could overcome that problem by, for example, the establishment of neighbourhood affairs committees which would eventually became full-fledged municipalities for the Coloured and Indian population? Did they investigate how they could improve this system and did they consider a development programme in order to prevent this frustration from developing? Did they attempt to ensure that the in-service training of municipal officials in those Coloured and Indian areas was of such a nature that it could encourage the development of full-fledged local authorities? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by congratulating the hon. the Deputy Minister on the position he now occupies. I want to wish him strength for the year which lies ahead, for since we will start with the consideration of the new constitution this year and much work will be done in this regard, I can foresee that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have a very busy year, but we know that he is a very able man.

When I refer to the proposed constitution, it is, to my mind, fitting that we should express our gratitude to the Secretary of the department and his staff for the voluminous guide document they compiled in this regard. However, there is still a lot of work to be done by them in this sphere, but I feel that we do have to express our gratitude to them for what they have already done in this regard.

I should like to refer to the Publications Board. As far as the Publications Board is concerned, I want to submit generally that all of us in this House agree that there should in fact be such a type of control over publications. It is strange that some people submit that there should be no control over newspapers. To me it is always very difficult to understand why there should be control over publications but no control over newspapers.

When there is control over publications, there should be certain norms. These norms should not be arbitrary—with that all of us agree—and these norms are, in fact, not arbitrary. Section 47 of the Publications Act, inter alia, details exactly what the norms comprise. When one has established the norms, it is also necessary to establish certain structures. The structures for the implementation of the provisions of this legislation have been worked out so that specialist committees can be consulted in this regard. I was therefore amazed that the hon. member for Sandton asked us to make the structures of the legislation more liberal. Furthermore, it also amazed me to hear from the hon. member for Durban Central that we had to do something, although he did not say what we ought to do.

The fact is that the norms are stipulated clearly in the Act and they are therefore not arbitrary. The structures are of such a nature that a wide spectrum of opinion can be consulted. In this case one person’s discretion is not used to the exclusion of all other opinions. If one is looking for a good example of the implementation of the audi alteram partem rule one will find it here if one bears in mind that the structures are so designed that a person repeatedly gets a chance to state his case. That, briefly, is what it amounts to. We are dealing here with the rule of law and the audi alteram partem rule and I really believed that the Opposition would admit at this stage that the legislation is as good as one can hope to get.

When it comes to the implementation of the legislation, I want to tell the Opposition that we have an appeal court, from where a case can be taken to the Supreme Court for review. Surely that is not excluded. With the best will in the world I really find it difficult to understand what the problems of the Opposition are. I think they have nothing to talk about and now they have to say something. What they are saying is perhaps misplaced because they think that the newspapers are at issue. They are merely trying to protect the newspapers. However, they are not trying to protect the moral standards of this nation.

I want to go into greater detail and point out that when one has established norms and structures, there should not be arbitrary intervention on the part of the executive. I think that we should congratulate the hon. the Minister. He has only one direction, as indicated on page 32 of the report. This is what we want in this country. Intervention should be limited to the minimum, the structures must do their work and if the structures do not work, hon. members of the Opposition can then tell us that the structures can be improved in this or that way, but there has been a total absence of any suggestions on their part in this regard. Therefore one can judge the objections of the hon. members of the Opposition in this light.

Perhaps it will be right for me to say, so that it can be known, that it is necessary for the public to do their part with regard to this publication control. We expect the public to take an active part in the protection of the morals of this nation. They have been directed to lodge a complaint if an undesirable publication comes to their attention. It is important that the public know this. It is not the State, in the first instance that intervenes with regard to the restriction of the distribution and sale of publications. It might be that the directorate starts something every now and again. However, it is mainly the public whose feelings are shocked and they start the complaints. Then it goes through the whole process to where we have the committees of experts.

On page 36 of the annual report of the Department of the Interior a list of approximately 252 people who can be chosen when members of committees have to be elected or co-opted is referred to. This represents a wealth of different opinions. Now I cannot understand the hon. member for Sandton when he dares to say that the opinion of only one person is valid. Surely that is ridiculous.

I did not say that.

Well, that is how I understood him. The hon. member can correct it at a later stage.

The norms that apply here, are very clear. In section 1 it is provided that—

This is the one norm and it is stated in the Act. Is anything wrong with that? The other norms against which publications are measured we find, for example, in section 47 where the norms indicate whether something indecent or obscene, something which is blasphemous or can hurt religious feelings and convictions and jeopardize the security of the State. All these norms are written into the Act. They are not arbitrary at all. This is the rule of law. The Opposition is objecting to this. On what grounds do they do so, apart from simply saying so? On what basis do they want us to ignore the security of the State? I should like to hear from the next speaker of the Opposition on what basis they want to object to the legislation.

I have in my possession a judgment which the Supreme Court, the Transvaal Provincial Division, gave with regard to Magersfontein, O Magersfontein. I scrutinized the Act closely. As regards section 47(2) the court said that the appeal board legally found that the provisions with regard to obscenity and religious conviction are obtained in that. The Supreme Court of South Africa confirmed the findings of the appeal board with regard to Magersfontein, O Magersfontein. In other words, the appeal board arrived at a perfectly correct finding in terms of legislation of this Parliament, and on the strength of the norms at its disposal.

The control over publications takes place in terms of the Act. Publications are defined in the definition in section 47 of the Act. Publications can therefore be controlled by people who lodge complaints. However, what is excluded, is a newspaper published by a publisher who is a member of the S.A. Press Union. One finds advertisements in those newspapers which could not possibly be used in other publications. Now I want to know whether there is a Press Union to take care of these matters. Do they believe that a degree of control should be exercised? My question is whether the Press Union wants to exercise any control at all. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was very disappointed to hear the hon. the Minister say that he had no intention of looking at any further amendments to the Publications Control Act. I have always found the hon. the Minister to be a moderate man. I have always found him to be an extremely reasonable Minister. I have always found him to be anything but stubborn in the face of reason. I have not found the hon. the Minister to be a man who seeks confrontation. I find him to be an hon. Minister who always listens to arguments and considers them.

So you agree with him, not so?

It is therefore disappointing that I heard the hon. the Minister close the door to future amendments and adaptations of the Publications Control Act.

I do not think he really meant it. Do you?

In trying to achieve amendments of this Act, and in seeking to catch the ear of the hon. the Minister in the course of amending the Act, I am in very good company. I should like to quote just briefly what was said by some of the people who are involved in literature and who are in fact intimately involved in the interests of literature, books, publications and the like. I quote again from Die Transvaler of 19 April 1979. Here the author Chris Barnard says—

What the hon. the Minister has said to us today is that, in the present circumstances, we have in fact reached the end of the road in so far as adaptations to the Act are concerned.

I said time and practice will show.

Prof. T. T. Cloete said—

That is what Prof. Cloete says. However, I still have further evidence to bring in support of the call for a change in the present system of publications control. I quote—

That is what Mr. Van Niekerk said. Now, I have been asked to give a complete exposé of the principles on which we would like the Publications Control Act to be amended.

Well, let us hear.

I quite honestly do not think this is the correct place to argue the legislation all over again. Let me refer hon. members to the Hansard speeches of hon. members on this side of the House. I am referring to hon. members such as the hon. member for Durban Central, the hon. member for Johannesburg North and myself. One could also look at the very fine speeches of the erstwhile hon. member for Green Point, Mr. Lionel Murray, on this subject. If one were to consult those speeches, one would find, time and time again, our full arguments in this House against the legislation.

I was questioned on one or two specific instances. An hon. member over there asked whether we were against anti-Jewish propaganda being controlled. In other words, he was asking whether we wished that sort of propaganda to be censored or stopped. Of course we are against anti-Semitic attacks, and I think we have always been against such attacks. In fact, we are against attacks on any religious group, not just Jewish people, Catholics or Protestants or the like. We are against attacks on any religious group in South Africa …

But?

… but we believe that South Africans should not be too sensitive. Not every criticism of a person’s religious beliefs should be banned. Criticism, even of religious beliefs, can be healthy in certain circumstances. Certainly—and I say this quite categorically—insulting, blasphemous or truly offensive matter should be controlled.

How do you control it?

We say, however, that this should not be done by committees sitting in isolation, anonymous and responsible to nobody. We say that there are sufficient controls in the legislation and Statute structure of South Africa to control the sort of things that are complained about. The distribution of pornography is a criminal offence in terms of South African legislation. I quoted facts in support of this in an earlier debate.

You are begging the question now.

Legislation on subversion allows for gaol sentences to be imposed on people who distribute subversive literature in this country. Blasphemy in public is also a criminal offence.

What is the degree of proof required in such an offence?

Not only are all these acts criminal offences, but there is also a further built-in protection in the form of the civil courts in which claims can be made for damages in the event of criminal or civil defamation. As the final arbiter on what we should be allowed to see or read, we in this party opt for the independent courts as constituted in the local and provincial divisions throughout the country. Whilst I believe that the Act is overly restrictive in its wording, my main complaint relates to the interpretation—not to the wording itself— given to the restrictive passages, particularly those of, I think, section 47. In this regard we opt for a decision being taken by the Supreme Court, consisting of a group of highly qualified, urbane, sophisticated legal luminaries. Those people, the judges of the Supreme Court, of the provincial divisions and of the appellate division, do not sit in ivory towers. They are men involved in practical matters. A broad spectrum of them are in contact with the world, dealing as they do, every day, with people’s problems. Although the chairman of the publications appeal board—as honest a man as he may be— has advice at his disposal and has precedents available to him to which he can refer, it must be borne in mind that it is his individual stamp which is to be found on the decisions that affect the literary lives of South African writers and artists.

Another question was asked by one of the hon. members. I think it was the hon. member for Rissik. He asked whether we are against subversive material and whether there should be some control over subversive material. The answer to that is: Yes, we are against subversive material being distributed in this country and we believe that there should be control of subversive material.

That is good news.

We believe, however, that there is already sufficient control available, in the legislation on the Statute Book, to look after that problem. If, however, the interested parties were to sit down and find that this legislation is not adequate in its present form, we say: Allow of a streamlined publications control procedure but, in the end result, allow recourse to the courts.

Hon. members have been baiting me personally for the past four or five weeks on a particular little story …

A little story? It is more than a little story.

… which appeared in an internationally known magazine some while ago. Attacks have come from the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. members for Von Brandis, Edenvale and Rissik, and finally from the hon. member for Mossel Bay. I am very surprised that an attack has come from the hon. member for Mossel Bay. I did not know he even read Punch. The only thing I have ever seen him read is comics.

Now you are being mean.

Order! The hon. member for False Bay must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I want to say—let hon. members please understand it—that the work of which I have a copy here, is a work of fiction. That is the first point I am the first, however, to say that it is not a work which is lacking in truth. It is in fact a criticism. If one reads it properly, one sees it is a criticism of violence. That is the first and major criticism contained in this story. It is a criticism of confrontation politics. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I should follow the hon. member in his argument, because over the past month that party has taken such a beating and brought such dreadful trouble upon itself, whether as a result of the shameful article which the hon. member has now tried to justify, or the humiliating defeat suffered at the polls or a telephone call, so that they now have nothing but problems with which to contend. Thinking things over a short while ago, I was struck by the idea of a new name for the PFP. I then decided that we should call this party “A party full of problems”. [Interjections.]

Almost a year has passed since the Department of Immigration was incorporated into the Department of the Interior. In that way, duplication was eliminated, but the activities continued unhindered as in the past. When one studies the statistics, one notices from the latest annual report that the emigration figure has dropped, because in the first six months of 1978, 11 107 people left the country, as opposed to 13 532 in the corresponding months of 1977. Most emigrants returned to the United Kingdom, viz. 42,56%, and 22,88% to the European continent. 11% left for America, and almost 6% even immigrated to countries in Africa. It is a fact, too, that more than 80% of those who left South Africa were not born here. Immigrants are usually restless people and the restless immigrant very easily becomes an emigrant.

Of the 11 107 emigrants during the first six months of 1978, 1 792 belonged to the professional group. 1 138 came from the manufacturing industry and/or the construction industry, while 756 occupied clerical positions here.

It goes without saying that we are sorry to have lost well-trained professional people in this process. The training of such people is expensive and costs the State a great deal of money. In saying that, I am not for a moment alleging that the professional people who left the country were necessarily trained in South Africa. It is also true that our medical practitioners, for example, are highly respected overseas and that they can obtain senior posts there very easily. I have seen recruitment pamphlets which our medical practitioners receive by post in which they are promised fantastic salaries and all sorts of fringe benefits, such as housing, transport, bonuses and leave, if they go and work abroad.

The immigration figures for the first six months of 1978 also showed a drop, because in the first six months of 1978 we received 9 058 immigrants, as opposed to the 13 295 in the first six months of 1977. Various factors can be advanced as reasons for this decrease, but in my opinion, it was principally caused by a set of circumstances, the most important of which is the economic recession which has taken place in our country. Other events continued to have a negative effect on the immigration flow and even led to emigration. At this stage I am not unduly concerned about this aspect at all. The point I want to emphasize, however, is that our immigration policy is based on a sound principle, viz. that immigration with due allowance for the need for skilled professional people will serve only to supplement the supply of professional people in this country, in such a way that it will never become a professional threat to our own people. We recruit what we need, but we do not recruit to cause unemployment. Every prospective immigrant’s application must consequently be tested against this principle. From the inception of this department it has been its emphatic policy that immigration should never be a threat to the employment opportunities or the culture of the South African. Consequently the immigration effort is adjusted to the economic recession and the possible unemployment caused by it. When there was economic growth, an effort was made to attract sufficient immigrants to this country, but when there was a levelling off, this inevitably led to a lower immigration figure. We simply could not keep our doors open to immigrants. We can never relax our strict selection.

This brings me to another aspect of our immigration pattern. The development which has already taken place in the field of labour in this country—and we anticipate further development—has confronted us with a new immigration pattern. Since we will concentrate more on training and developing our own people, our own labour resources, this country will make less and less use of immigration from the middle groups. Consequently our needs in future will lie with the higher professional groups. Our great need lies in the area of the professions and the more highly trained technological workers. Well-trained workers will probably be in demand for many years to come, because we are a developing country. Another significant phenomenon is that of the 53 627 immigrants who have entered the country over the past two years, the applications of a third, or 18 578, were only approved after they had arrived in the Republic. This proves to us that the people come to see what our country is like and then apply to be able to settle here permanently.

I should also like to make a few remarks with regard to the assimilation of immigrants. I have just said that South Africa has a fixed immigration policy from which it cannot deviate. For purposes of my argument, that policy entails the very important principle that our system is geared to bringing only the best immigrants to South Africa. The immigrants are carefully selected. Consequently it is essential that we give special attention to the successful assimilation of these people. In this regard, the mammoth task performed by assimilation organizations is highly appreciated. But I do not want to elaborate on this matter now. But I do want to say that apart from seeing to the needs of the immigrants, these organizations also try to persuade the immigrant to acquire South African citizenship. Of the more than 400 000 immigrants who have come to South Africa since 1968, only approximately 10% have become South African citizens. We piloted the South African Citizenship Act through Parliament last year, and I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this Act has come into operation and how successful it is.

Finally, I want to point out again that the assimilation of the immigrant is not only the task of assimilation organizations, but that the assimilation of the immigrant and the task of making him feel at home and helping him is the task of every South African. We should also concentrate on the child. It is difficult for the parents to surrender their loyalty and ties with their own fatherland, but for the immigrant child it is easier. He overcomes the language and other problems more readily and his loyalty and love for his new fatherland are natural and obvious to him. South Africans should also realize that the immigrant is here primarily for his own advantage, but that his presence is also to the advantage of South Africa. Consequently we must show him the necessary respect. It is also important for the immigrant to realize that he should also contribute his share and that he should respect the country’s customs and traditions. The immigrant, too, can do much to make himself more acceptable in our country. Everything cannot always come from one side only.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Kempton Park on his speech on immigration and particularly on the positive note he sounded in this regard. I also want to associate myself with his reference to the amalgamation of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Immigration. I want to add that apart from all the benefits which it has brought, it has also meant one major benefit to the public, viz. that the confusion which existed to a large extent in respect of various departments having to deal with related matters, for example temporary and permanent resident’s permits, has now been eliminated. All matters concerning our prospective or new citizens are now dealt with by one department. I think this is universally welcomed as a step in the right direction.

But I also want to pay tribute at once to the former independent Department of Immigration which, during the 18 years of its existence, provided South Africa with a total gain in human material, i.e. workers and entrepreneurs, of 436 261 persons. This is an asset which has been chosen over the years with great circumspection and strict screening in accordance with the needs existing from time to time, because with the implementation of an active immigration policy at the time of the establishment of the Department of Immigration in 1961, the Government gave the clear assurance that it would ensure that immigration would never become a threat to the employment opportunities, culture and traditions of the respective population groups in South Africa.

In spite of this assurance there nevertheless existed a great deal of antagonism and prejudice towards the immigration policy among some of our people. The arguments which were advanced and which were based on certain suppositions, certainly had substance. For example, the argument was advanced that during the late ’sixties and beginning of the ’seventies, a target was set that we would require an annual gain in immigrants of between 40 000 and 50 000 in order to maintain an average growth rate of 516%. If it is also taken into account that the total White birth rate during those years was only in the vicinity of 45 000 per annum and that our natural population would only become reproductive in 20 to 25 years’ time, while the young immigrant families were in the reproductive stage of their lives and this situation would continue for an unlimited period, the danger would indeed exist that we could move in the direction of a cosmopolitan society which would be a real threat to our traditional philosophy of and outlook on life as well as our traditions, language and culture, which are extremely important elements in the make-up of a strong and steadfast nation which will not succumb to the present onslaughts from outside.

But it can be said with sincere gratitude that this antagonism and prejudice have changed to a spirit of acceptance of our immigrants as fellow-South Africans and in many cases also as fellow-compatriots who have exactly the same ideals and aspirations as we do for this fine country.

But what are the reasons for this changed attitude to immigration and immigrants? Firstly, it is certainly the policy of the Government that undertook not to endanger the interests of its own citizens by its immigration policy. When there was a levelling off in the economic growth rate the Government did not allow the South African workers’ position to be threatened by unqualified immigration in a time of increasing unemployment. In spite of the fact that considerable interest in South Africa still exists among prospective immigrants, the decrease in the demand for manpower, particularly in respect of certain spheres of activity, has made it necessary for this to be discouraged. This is factually illustrated by the 9 597 economically active immigrants who entered this country in 1977 in comparison with 20 021 in the year 1975.

A second important reason for this is the South African Citizenship Amendment Act, passed in 1978, which should be regarded as a positive step with regard to the obtaining of citizenship by immigrants in general. This means that immigrants below the age of 25 years now automatically become South African citizens after two years and are consequently subject to compulsory military service, unless they give prior notice that they do not intend to become South African citizens. In such a case that immigrant forfeits his right to permanent residence and he will have to apply for a temporary residential permit which he will have to renew periodically as he is required to do.

One thing is sure, and that is that if any immigrant will accept this country as his fatherland and is consequently prepared to fight and to lay down his life for this country if necessary, it is the quickest and best way in which such an immigrant will be accepted as a fellow-countryman and a fellow-fighter for this fatherland. I want to point out a good example. A 21 year old Dutch teacher, Gerhard C. Kooijker, joined General Beyers’ commando in 1901, after a short stay in South Africa. With the occupation of Pietersburg on 8 April 1901, this young immigrant from the Netherlands lost his horse in some unaccountable way and had to flee to Pietersburg by foot in an easterly direction carrying his rifle in his hand. A mounted patrol of soldiers pursued him. He sought cover behind an ant-heap and killed two Tasmanian officers, one soldier and 25 horses before he was wounded and had to surrender, whereupon the soldiers ran him through with their bayonets. His grave is still to be seen today and his name has been recorded in the Northern Transvaal’s roll of honour. He is regarded as a valued member of a nation who fought for its freedom at that time.

If one examines the group of Parliamentarians who came to Parliament in the middle ’seventies, one sees, inter alia, two members of the Ligthelm family who are representative of the first generation of an immigrant father and his family who emigrated to South Africa in the last decade of the previous century. Those immigrant sons of that father associated themselves with the aspirations and the ideals of a nation to such an extent that they became fully assimilated. Two sons of that family commanded the esteem and respect of their people to such an extent that they were requested by their respective communities to represent their interests here in this highest House.

I want to continue. In this same parliamentary group there are also representatives of the second generation of immigrants from another country of origin. I am referring to the Scott and Simkin families who have also become valued members of the nation, and were completely assimilated into that nation.

In view of this I now want to make a serious appeal, particularly to the immigrants who immigrated before 1978 and are not yet citizens of this country, to come forward voluntarily and to make themselves available for military training. If one wants to thrive on the wealth, the privileges and the comforts of a fatherland, you should also be prepared to give everything, yes, even your life, to such a country. Some of them have already done this and have made the supreme sacrifice to this country. They have already been included in the roll of honour of this country and in the distant future will still be considered full-fledged and valued citizens of this country.

This is and remains the best and the most honourable way to become a part of a new fatherland and a nation and to share with that nation its fine ideals and the idea of a fine destination together.

Mr. Chairman, before dealing with three specific issues which I want to discuss with the hon. Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister, I should just like to point out to the hon. member for Umlazi that he supplied a very simplistic answer to the very important questions which were discussed by the hon. member for Durban Central regarding the article about his party’s MPC for Pinetown. I think the hon. member for Umlazi should be aware of the fact that to say that that member of the provincial council was not in possession of the estimated income and expenditure as per the budget of this House really does not carry any water at all, because I am sure the member of the provincial council, Mr. Jones, was in possession of the estimated income and expenditure of the province. I do not think that that is any argument at all, but I am sure the hon. member for Umlazi will profit by reading this particular news cutting. We can let him have it afterwards. Perhaps he will then gain better insight into the problem.

Mr. Jones is not unintelligent.

There are three items I should like to raise with the hon. Minister. The first is the question of voter registration. We know from what the hon. the Minister has said that this matter is receiving attention at the moment and that there is going to be a general registration drive. I believe that a departmental committee has also been appointed which will deal with all the problems involved in this matter. We as a political party particularly welcome this general registration because in the past the Government has relied virtually entirely upon political parties and voluntary workers to update the voters’ roll. I do not think that those people can really work effectively unless they have legislative support from the Government and in particular from the hon. the Minister’s department. The question that comes to mind, which I should like the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with if they have the opportunity, is why it has been found, for instance with voter registration, that the computer system used for the Book of Life was incompatible with the computer which was to be used for the printing of the voters’ roll. Why was there that oversight? How did it come about that we had this technical problem which no doubt very largely contributed towards the state in which the voters’ roll is today.

Then I should also like to add a particular appeal to what other hon. members have said, namely that it is not going to be possible to maintain an effective and up-to-date voters’ roll unless the voter is given an incentive to register. In this connection I should like to make two suggestions to the hon. the Minister. Let me say that the principle of decentralizing the voters’ roll is an exceptionally good one and that we welcome it. No doubt it will be found in the long run that the registration of voters at municipal level is in fact the way to control this.

But I should like to talk about inducement to get the voter to register and remain correctly registered in the proper constituency. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that, if a voter does not vote in a provincial or Parliamentary election, serious consideration should be given either to imposing a fine for not voting, similar to the system which exists in Australia, or, alternatively, to stipulating that all those individuals who do not vote and do not have a valid reason to offer for not voting in an election should in fact be removed from the voters’ roll. I suggest this because there appears to be more concern among certain individuals about registering and obtaining their dog licences than exercising their political responsibility in South Africa. It is the people who are not aware of their political responsibility who are usually the individuals who fail to report their change of address. Therefore I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that, although there should be incentives to the young people of 16 years of age to register, there should be an inducement with a legalistic infrastructure to ensure that voters continue to give notice of their change of address and in fact participate in the political responsibilities which they have.

Next, I should like to turn to the question of the Book of Life. I know it was not this hon. Minister’s fault that there was a debacle in connection with the Book of Life, but that it was in fact his predecessor who was responsible. I should like to compliment the hon. the Minister on appearing on TV and unashamedly, unreservedly, telling the nation last year that we had a R35 million debacle. I think that is the way to settle one’s problems. I think the hon. the Minister should be complimented on that. What is interesting, however, is that the R34 million that went to The Citizen almost caused a collapse and an apoplexy in South Africa, while the debacle with the Book of Life which cost South Africa R35 million, hardly caused a ripple. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this was indeed a very expensive mistake, and I want to qualify this by saying that neither the hon. the Deputy Minister nor the hon. the Minister were actually responsible for it. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister: Why should we have a Book of Life, even a 40% smaller one? Why is it not possible to issue every citizen who turns 16 with a passport? A passport has served the function of an identity book very well for a limited sector of the population. The functions of a passport are basically: identification, which is exactly the function of an ID book; to assist in determining whether an individual has met his tax obligations, his military obligations, and to control influx and efflux in and out of South Africa. I should like to know why it is actually necessary to develop a massively expensive system of new documents while it might be possible to issue the standard passport to individuals who turn 16 years of age and become citizens in their own right. Perhaps we should also consider the possibility of extending the life of a passport to 10 years. If an individual would like to update his personal information as a result of a change in the colour of his hair or changes in his physical features, he could have another photograph put in this document. I should further like to ask he hon. the Minister: Why is it actually necessary to deviate from the tried and trusted system such as the passport? I know the hon. the Minister may say that a passport is really only for influx and efflux control over people who move in and out of South Africa. But why is it not possible to extend that function slightly and make use of this system about which—as far as I know—very few people have complained. They are proud to be citizens of South Africa and they have a sense of identity when owning a passport. Hon. members will be surprised to hear how many people are actually reluctant to surrender their passports, after the three year period, when it should be surrendered. I should also like to suggest that that particular document, whether it be a passport or something else, should actually be utilized in the voting process to the extent that the document be stamped in order to prove that the holder of the document has voted. This would once again lead to better control as to where the individual can be found, etc.

In the third place I should like to refer to an item to which other hon. members have also referred, i.e. the question of immigration to South Africa. One aspect that I wish to refer to briefly in this regard, is the shortage of artisans with which South Africa will be faced in the very near future. According to the February report of the Chamber of Mines, it is estimated that within three years’ time— they motivate this statement extremely well on page 8 of that report—we are going to be short of 50 000 artisans in South Africa. I know that the report of the Wiehahn Commission and the Riekert Commission are going to make it possible for us to train members of other race groups, but that is going to take a long time. It is going to be an evolutionary process, because there are not enough of them with primary education to fill these vacancies. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. the Deputy Minister that they seriously consider giving additional incentives to immigrants who are trained and skilled, such as doctors or artisans, to come to South Africa. I suggest as a possibility that we grant them one year of income tax free income in South Africa in addition to the benefits and the assistance, they receive at the moment. By doing this we will not be giving them hand-outs, because they have to come to this country and they have to work for a living. Perhaps we can even consider granting them two years free of income tax, depending on the individual and the category he falls into. I am sure that will attract a large number of people. This is a strong possibility, especially in the light of the fact that the cost of training one artisan in South Africa amounts to more than R6 000. In direct costs it costs the State R30 000 to train one doctor. Why is it therefore not possible to offer certain categories of highly skilled people, professional and skilled artisans, that kind of incentive on a selective basis in order to attract them to South Africa? I am sure that we will find that such a system will surely attract them.

One can use one’s imagination and think of other incentives which can be granted to the individual without actually making it a hand-out. In the long run we are going to benefit from this, because what is the loss to the country in terms of income tax for one year on a doctor’s salary or on the salary of a skilled artisan? It cannot be much more than approximately R4 000 to R5 000. Against that the cost of training that individual is in the region of R6 000 in the case of an artisan that is trained for a period of five years, and R30 000 or more in the case of a doctor. The infrastructure must then still be added, because it is also a direct expense to the State. So I think we can well afford to investigate the possibility of granting these people income tax reliefs for perhaps the first two years of their employment in South Africa. I do not think we can afford not to have immigrants coming to this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I shall be unable to reply to other aspects. I want to restrict myself to questions in regard to immigration. Apart from the immigration aspect, the hon. member for Durban North will also receive a reply from the hon. the Minister.

I want to begin by referring to what the hon. member for Hillbrow said earlier this afternoon. I believe he is engaged elsewhere, but I shall nevertheless reply to his questions. He began by mentioning the contribution which immigrants have made to the economic revival of the country. No one will fail to appreciate that. Immigrants have indeed made a major contribution in South Africa, particularly in the field of technological development at a time when South Africa needed it very much. The hon. member said that we should attempt to compile statistics in an effort to ascertain why immigrants leave the country. I want to tell him that we seldom know beforehand when a person intends to leave the country. It is usually when he completes the form at the departure point that he indicates that he is leaving the country because he will receive better financial benefits. That is the standard answer we receive in regard to the question in the form. Then the hon. member said that we should try to establish how much money those people take out of the country. That is a question he should put to the hon. the Minister of Finance. We have no control over that. He also wanted to know the age of such immigrants. We are not responsible for that statistic. He should ask the hon. the Minister of Statistics that when his Vote is discussed.

I want to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for his contribution. I fully agree with most of the thoughts he expressed here. We shall try to take the matters he discussed here further. The hon. member for Umhlanga is experiencing certain problems with immigrants who are in debt. The hon. the Minister will specifically reply to that. The hon. member for Kempton Park and he commended the work of the 1820 Settlers Movement and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie. I want to associate myself with the hon. members and express my personal appreciation on behalf of the department and the hon. the Minister for the valued efforts of those organizations and the assistance in respect of assimilation which they offer immigrants. Of course these organizations receive a very large Government subsidy.

The hon. member for Kempton Park said that we should in future concentrate more on the higher professions when recruit immigrants. If one analyses the figures for 1978, they indicate that 26% of the immigrants who were recruited by us, are technicians, while 37% fall into the category of managers and professional men and women. Furthermore, he and the hon. member for Pietersburg asked what effect the legislation we passed last year in respect of compulsory national service by young immigrants is having. Our information is— and we have had it verified in our foreign offices—that this requirements is very clearly and frankly put to people who intend to immigrate, but that it makes no difference at all to them. Only in fewer than half a dozen cases did it negatively influence prospective immigrants.

The hon. member for Pietersburg commended the fact that the Department of Immigration has been integrated with the Department of the Interior. I do not want to enlarge on that. The policy in respect of immigration, as was the case when it was a separate department, still continues. He referred to the antagonism amongst some of our people towards immigrants. As is the case with the poor, we shall always have that with us. However, I am very pleased, about the approach and balanced attitude of the hon. member in this regard. If we, who are the leaders of our various communities, regard and approach the matter in that light, we shall make progress towards reducing that antagonism.

In the remaining time at my disposal, I should like to reply in detail to the statements which the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Hillbrow made in regard to immigration. It is true that we have always endeavoured to link the recruitment of immigrants to the needs of South Africa in respect of skilled and trained workers. We had to meet our manpower needs taking economic, social and cultural interests in the country itself into account. The hon. member for Hillbrow discussed our attempt to recruit a certain number of immigrants in view of an annual growth rate of 5,5%. It was our aim during the ’sixties and the early ’seventies to maintain a growth rate of 5,5% per annum in South Africa by attempting to achieve a gain of between 30 000 and 40 000 per annum in respect of immigrants.

At that time, we easily reached that goal. In 1975, in fact, we gained more than 50 000 immigrants.

It is true that there was a decrease in the number of immigrants during 1978. The annual figure consequently dropped to 18 565. In my opinion, it is completely realistic, when one has set a goal of 30 000 for instance, based on a growth rate of 5,5%, to regard a total of 18 500 as a realistic goal for a growth rate of less than 2%. That has been our growth rate in recent years. If we wanted to use the same standards today for the recruitment of immigrants abroad, which were acceptable in the ’sixties and in the early ’seventies, it would be possible to bring thousands of additional immigrants into the country. It is not difficult for us to bring thousands of additional immigrants into the country. However, that is not our primary goal. What would we achieve by doing that? All we would achieve will be an increase in our unemployment figure. Furthermore, we would also be delaying the process of training our own people, and would also be placing a definite obstacle in the way of our coloured population groups obtaining their legitimate place in the skilled and trained professions. Therefore our primary attitude is not only to bring people, good as well as bad, to our country. We want people we can use in this country, people we need here.

In view of the increasing number of skilled workers who are entering the labour market within South Africa—White as well as non-White—and in view of the tremendous effect of the economic recession which ended recently—a recession which lasted for three years, and which was the worst one since the ’thirties—the Government decided, in view of the circumstances, to give priority to our own skilled people, Whites and non-Whites. That was why the Government’s policy in regard to the recruitment of immigrants changed drastically. So it was decided, for instance, to recruit no further immigrants for the building and construction industries. That alone, according to our surveys, meant that we cut off approximately 50% of our potential immigrants—as calculated on our previous basis. However, we also imposed restrictions on other professions, for example that of technicians in the television industry, clerks, typists, motor-car and diesel mechanics, etc. Today we do not need those people to the same extent as before. So we simply do not recruit them. That is why there are fewer immigrants. People will still be recruited abroad on a selective basis, people such as skilled workers, people in respect of whom there is still a shortage in the Republic, but with the express understanding that they will not aggravate the unemployment situation in this country. I want to repeat that it would be extremely irresponsible if, with the high, disturbing unemployment figure among certain population groups, we set ourselves the goal of bringing in just any immigrant, any person who wants to come.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. the Deputy Minister a chance to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member. I hope I shall not abuse it. It would be very irresponsible if we did not face up to these facts. Therefore, immigrants of necessity have to be restricted to those who can be assimilated into the labour market without any problems. Originally, as I said, our recruiting field consisted of virtually the whole of the labour market. There was a great demand at first for artisans and production workers, people we are providing out of our own resources today. A big change has been brought about in South Africa as we began meeting our own needs by training Coloureds in particular so that they now do work which they were unable to do before. In this regard therefore, there will be a growing emphasis on recruiting people in the higher professional and technical fields of activity, for which a demand still exists in South Africa.

Now I should just like to say a few words in regard to emigration. We should not try to create the impression that the fact that thousands of people are leaving the country, is a whim or a tendency which has developed in South Africa over the past few years. There have always been thousands of people leaving the country every year. Between 1963 and 1976 we gained 552 549 immigrants, but during the same years 128 754 people left the country. In other words, when things were going well in South Africa and we could get all the immigrants we wanted, we still had an average outflow of 9 183 people from this country. So the hon. member for Hillbrow should not suddenly become upset about the situation. The question of immigration, the question of emigration and the question of the acceptance of citizenship are very closely connected with the economic conditions in the country. If the economic trends tend to rise, fewer people leave the country and we are also able to take in more people.

I want to point out that although 6 159 fewer immigrants entered the country this year than was the case last year there is also the hopeful sign—and this is something of which hon. members should take cognizance—that 5 441 fewer people left the country this year than was the case in 1977. Furthermore, what is also promising is that the number of immigrants have exceeded the number of emigrants every month since September. It is interesting to see—the hon. member for Sandton and others referred to it—that 3 296 immigrants accepted South African citizenship last year, 1 000 more than the previous year. This proves how the trend changes as the economic climate in the country changes.

It is true that there is a change in the economic climate and that it can also be felt in this sphere. There are clear indications that there are people in certain industries in South Africa who are again looking to immigrants. We know of 15 firms which have again been attempting to recruit people since last year. There are another 18 firms which approached us and asked whether they could channelize their recruitment through us. I want to conclude by saying that we shall continue to bring immigrants into the country in a selective way. We shall bring in those immigrants we need, but we shall not aggravate the problems of South Africa by bringing any and all immigrants into South Africa, whether they be good or bad immigrants, with the idea that we should bring many people into the country. We must take particular cognizance of the fact that the pattern in our labour market has changed considerably and that there are thousands of people of all colour groups who at present do skilled and trained work for which we used immigrants in the past. We must protect our people and train them increasingly to do that work, instead of looking to immigration.

Mr. Chairman, with due thanks to the hon. Whip on the other side of the House, I should just like to finish the point I was making a little while ago. I was speaking about the criticism which has been levelled at a story of which I was the author in the magazine Punch. I have said that the story basically was a criticism of violence. I intended it to be a criticism of confrontation politics. I do not believe for one single second that the story is in any way anti-Afrikaans. It is not in my blood to be anti-Afrikaans. I do not believe that the story is anti-anyone. Col. Van Aswegen in the story is a hero. Van Vrede is one of the heroes of the story. Who is the criminal in the story? The criminal in the story is Matsoli, and the story itself sketches the circumstances in which he became one. Above all, the story is a warning of what South Africa could be like when all the options are closed to the South African Government and to the people. It is a warning of what South Africa could be like when isolation, confrontation and terrorism is all that is left. Ultimately, it is a commentary on a lack of understanding on the part of the ordinary man of what Black aspirations and frustrations entail. It is a plea that we should work harder at finding a solution. Finally, while it may not be well written, it is indeed an honest story. A serving South African diplomat, a very senior man, only a few days ago said to me: “The trouble is, it is too real. It is too close to the truth.” I am sorry that the story did not please hon. members, but I am at least grateful for one thing, and that is that the message seems to be getting through.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Umhlanga, as he has indicated that he will not be present after dinner this evening. As the hon. member well knows, I have a very high regard for him personally, but I cannot say the same for his knowledge of the law. As far as section 89 of the Constitution is concerned, one must consider that in conjunction with case law on the matter. For the benefit of the hon. member, I will quote fully what the law advisers said about the matter—

This is the old Act. They go on to say—

The advisers then added—

I hope that explains the whole matter to the hon. members from Natal.

I now want to refer to the question of foreigners. I shall not call them immigrants. In this country we make the mistake of calling all foreigners immigrants. As far as foreigners who abscond without paying their debts are concerned, I am afraid I cannot help the hon. member. There are provisions in our civil law people can take recourse to. For instance, there is a provision that if a person wants to abscond, both his person and his property in this country can be attached. Unfortunately, as far as my department is concerned, we cannot just stop a person from flying overseas or going overseas by ship if he has a foreign passport. I hope I have now answered the hon. member as far as that is concerned.

*I now want to refer to the question of the flag. Since the hon. member as well as the hon. member for Meyerton referred to it, I should like to say that I think that the Sunday Times did the country a disservice with the report it published yesterday, because I think that sectional bias is no longer called for in matters concerning our flag and our national anthem in this country. One simply cannot take sectional decisions about these questions; one can only decide when there is the greatest possible consensus. I do not want to take the matter any further. As hon. members know for themselves, and contrary to the general belief, the flag and the national anthem do not fall under my department, but directly under the hon. the Prime Minister. I think the hon. the Prime Minister made a very dignified statement yesterday with reference to the report in the Sunday Times. However, I am chairman of the Select Committee on the Constitution, and the Constitution contains a section describing our flag and our national anthem. It is true, too, that people have the right—and they will probably exercise it—to make representations for or against the retention of our present flag and the national anthem. Of course, I do not want to anticipate matters, except for saying that I am fully confident that since the Select Committee of which I am the chairman consists of hon. members of all sides of the House, hon. members with common sense, they will approach this matter without sectional bias, and with the greatest sensitivity. I hope I have satisfied hon. members on this point.

I shall not quite get through my speech, but shall speak until business is suspended. I have already conveyed my thanks to the departmental head and his staff. I also want to thank the chairman of the appeal board, the members of the board, the Director of Publications, the members of the directorate and all committee members who have helped to control publications over the year. I repeat that in spite of all the criticism, I believe that they showed the necessary compassion and knowledge in this connection. I also want to say specifically that I greatly appreciate the fact that certain members of the directorate were able to be present here today to follow the debate. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the Government Printer and his staff, too, for their good work over the past year. As the responsible Minister I was privileged a few months ago to pay a visit to the Government Printing Works, and I can assure hon. members that this is really a big factory and that we may be proud of it.

In reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, I want to tell him again that the problem to which he referred, concerning people whose names appeared on a voters’ roll and who are no longer there— some of them have even voted after their death—is precisely the problem we want to eliminate with the new system of decentralization, where we shall be informed of the latest particulars from time to time at the source—by the local authority and other bodies.

I want to thank the hon. member for Rissik for his further solid contribution on publications control, and I also want to thank the hon. member for Mossel Bay in the same connection.

Arising from what the hon. member for Umlazi said, I want to express my regret— and I hope all the hon. members of Natal are listening—that the Executive Committee of the Natal Provincial Council took the course that they did. The Department of the Interior had been commissioned to investigate certain aspects of local government. We did not turn it into a political issue. We invited members of that Executive Committee and they were present at our deliberations. When it became clear that they had a new dispensation in mind as far as local government was concerned, a dispensation which deviated from our own plan in certain respects, I wrote a friendly letter to the Administrator-in-Executive Committee, requesting them not to proceed at that stage. We were fairly close to one another in our ideas, and I wanted them to let the matter stand over so that we might see whether we could come to an amicable agreement. I regret to say that to this day, I have not received a reply to that letter from the Executive Committee.

I also thank the hon. member for Pretoria West for the contribution he made.

Then I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that there was no R35 million debacle in the Department of the Interior. The figure of R35 million includes that enormous building and everything that was needed in connection with this whole matter. There was no debacle; it was only a capital investment to get the things going, and there was some delay, which has already been rectified. As far as the book of life story is concerned, I shall reply to the hon. member either in private or by way of a letter.

Votes agreed to.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Vote No. 28.—“Public Service Commission”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few statements again, and I regret having to bore hon. members with these. I honestly do not intend to frustrate them, but I believe that they will be able to conduct a meaningful debate on the information I am going to furnish them.

At this stage I must announce that. Mr. H. A. Prinsloo, a member of the Public Service Commission, is retiring on pension at the end of July this year after a period of 45 years in the Public Service. Mr. Prinsloo was born at Lindley in the Free State. After a modest beginning on 26 June 1934 in the then Department of Posts and Telegraphs, he rose to one of the highest positions in the Public Service. Having served in various departments, he was promoted to Secretary for Indian Affairs on 1 January 1970. His special qualities made him a logical choice for appointment to the Public Service Commission with effect from 1 August 1976. In this capacity, too, he rendered outstanding service and lived up to all expectations. At the end of a brilliant Public Service career and at the beginning of a well-earned rest, I want to thank him for his cordial co-operation and for the dignity which he conferred upon his office. My best wishes go with him and his wife on the road that lies ahead.

I also take pleasure in being able to announce that. Mr. H. P. J. Van Vuuren has been appointed a member of the Public Service Commission. As is already known, Mr. Van Vuuren, the present Secretary for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, has been appointed a member of the Public Service Commission in the place of Mr. H. A. Prinsloo with effect from 1 August 1979. Mr. Van Vuuren entered the Public Service on 1 November 1944 and served in various capacities in the Department of Justice up to 31 March 1968. As from 1 April 1968, he was promoted to the position of Deputy Secretary for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, and with effect from 1 August 1970 he was appointed Secretary to the department I should like to welcome Mr. Van Vuuren as a member of the Public Service Commission and I am looking forward to a cordial and fruitful co-operation with him.

There are two more short statements I should like to make. The first relates to the rationalization of the Public Service. During the discussion of his Vote, the hon. the Prime Minister outlined the steps which are already being taken and which are still envisaged in terms of the rationalization programme. I have already supplemented his remarks by way of a Press statement. I consider this an opportune moment for making some observations about how the rationalization programme will affect the officials.

In the first place, I must point out to the House that with regard to skilled labour, we have the position in the market that demand far exceeds supply. This does not only apply to the Public Service or the private sector. A circulation of skilled labour is taking place today. The one department attracts people from another department and corporations and the private sector attract skilled people from the Public Service, while in the private sector, the one organization entices away skilled labour from the other by means of more attractive offers.

†Firstly, it must be emphasized that the rationalization programme cannot be implemented overnight and that it can only be fulfilled within a reasonable time limit. Secondly, staff shortages almost doubled over the past eight years. Vacancies in the clerical and administrative divisions, the main source for managerial staff, increased from 4,7% to 16,2%. The work performances of almost a third of the more than the 7 000 public servants subjected to merit assessment during 1976 and 1977, did not come up to expectations, and the result is that the more talented employees have to carry an even heavier burden. This increases the staff turnover, and the result is that after 10 years service only three out of 10 employees recruited are retained for the Public Service. If it is taken into account that the establishment of the Public Service has increased more rapidly than the increase in population, as well as the fact that 22% of the officialdom is already older than 50 years, it must be clear that there will always be room in the Public Service for those who seek employment.

*The rationalization programme is intended to accomplish, inter alia—

1. (a) Elimination, as far as possible, of duplication of work between the departments, and the abolition of unnecessary legislation;
2. (b) Evaluation of the correct functional homes of organizational components in existing departments;
3. (c) The integration of overlapping functions in the government sector with State Departments. In this connection, the commission will do its duty as the central body of government authority as far as administration is concerned;
4. (d) In the process, attention will be given to the identification of administrative functions belonging to the various ethnic groups, with a view to a meaningful division as envisaged in the new constitutional dispensation;
5. (e) A realistic remuneration ratio, especially in the higher cadres, in order to reward service and to attract and retain officials.

I have already pointed out that the problems of the two scarce production factors, i.e. skilled manpower and funds, cannot be solved by superficial and hasty classifications of functions and patchwork on salary structures.

In brief, the whole reorganization programme is intended to create an effective Government machine which will be able to attract and retain skilled staff so as to be able to perform its task of national service with pride.

A final thought in this connection is that the transfer of officials within the Public Service is an accepted approach of the Public Service Commission because it leads to the correct placing of officials in the interests of the State as well as the official.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make just one more statement. It concerns the liaison between representation from the private sector and the Public Service Commission.

1. 1. During the discussion of his Vote, the hon. the Prime Minister said the following about this matter: “I even want to raise the question, without giving a final decision on the matter, whether the time is not perhaps opportune to give one or two representatives from the private sector permanent representation on the Public Service Commission.” There have also been calls for certain sectors in the Public Service to be represented on the Public Service Commission as well.
2. 2. Before reacting to the above, I wish to make a few observations about the composition and status of the Public Service Commission, by way of furnishing some background information—
   1. (a) The commission, consisting of a chairman and two members, is appointed by the State President in terms of Act 54 of 1957.
   2. (b) The Act also provides that the State President must have due regard to the knowledge of and experience in the Public Service of the persons to be appointed. Therefore there are no grounds for group representation on the commission.
   3. (c) The commission falls under the Prime Minister and the members are chosen from the ranks of any of the serving heads of departments. This was decided on in 1976, after a thorough investigation of the desirability or otherwise of a central staff organization and its composition.
3. 3. The provisions of the Act and the appointment and status of the commission cannot be faulted and it must remain the way it is so as to perform its task as central authoritative body as efficiently as possible.
4. 4. However, there is a need—and this has recently been highlighted again—especially on the part of two departments, for a more direct say in the commission’s deliberations about salaries and conditions of service affecting them. These two departments, the S.A. Defence Force and the S.A. Police, unlike the other State departments, act completely independently of the Public Service Commission in all matters concerning staff and establishment, with the exception of salaries and conditions of service. Therefore their position is different, and the feeling has arisen among them that their needs and problems perhaps do not receive the same attention as those of the other departments.
5. 5. In the light of this, the commission proposed that in addition to the normal liaison which takes place continuously, it should consult at least twice a year, on a regular basis, with the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force and the Commissioner of the S.A. Police individually about their specific needs and staff problems. This proposal has been accepted.
6. 6. By virtue of its position as the central staff authority, the commission is at the centre of the dynamic and highly competitive national development and turmoil. Therefore it cannot stand aloof from what goes on in the other sectors in the country. For that reason, the Public Service Commission liaises with recognized leaders of other government institutions and of the private sector.
7. 7. This liaison has been very fruitful, but because of the increasing complexity of present-day problems, especially with regard to productivity, rationalization, wage inequalities, shortages of schooled manpower and so forth, this liaison must now be placed on a more permanent basis.
8. 8. The Public Service Commission has consequently recommended—and the hon. the Prime Minister and I have accepted its recommendations—that—
   1. (a) Three leading persons from the private sector be invited to make themselves available, for a period not exceeding three years, for consultation with the Public Service Commission on a regular basis.
   2. (b) According to the need and circumstances, heads of Government departments will be invited by the Public Service Commission to attend these consultations. This may mean that at such an advisory meeting, the General Manager of the Railways, the Post-master-General, the Chief of the Defence Force, the Commissioner of Police or any of the other departmental heads may be present.
   3. (c) This meeting will only give advice concerning matters of a non-personal nature.
   4. (d) This meeting will be supplementary to the present regular liaison and discussions between the commission, departmental heads and other bodies.
9. 9. The hon. the Prime Minister will in due course announce the names of those persons from the private sector who have accepted the invitation.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened once again—and I hope the hon. the Minister will not get upset—to a long series of his statements. Honestly, Mr. Chairman, these statements should have been handed to the Press yesterday. The hon. the Minister knows that the debate is going to last only an hour or so and that there are very few speakers in the debate, I think it is not fair to expect an intelligent response to a long series of statements read out to us. [Interjections.]

I should like to associate myself with the hon. the Minister’s remarks concerning Mr. Prinsloo, who has been a member of the commission and who has had many years of distinguished service in the Public Service. I should like to wish Mr. Prinsloo well in his retirement. I should also like to thank him for the services he has rendered to South Africa.

Secondly, I should like to welcome Mr. Van Vuuren to the Public Service Commission and to commend him on his appointment and wish him a most useful and fruitful stay and hard work in that post.

My first task in relation to this debate is to compliment the compilers of the report which we have before us. I should like to commend them on a job well done. I believe that it is a frank document. It is a treatize which does not blindly avoid pitfalls or problem areas. It is a document which deals openly with both the successes and the failures of the period under review. Moreover, it exposes hon. members to an insight into the methods which are being adopted to obviate shortcomings and to improve productivity.

Much as I am impressed by the report, however, I must express a certain amount of disappointment at the fact that by the time the report reached us it was already almost a year out of date. This is often the case with reports coming to us from other departments of the Public Service. Hopefully, now that the Public Service is converting to the uniform method of planned budgeting, it will be possible to bring out departmental reports all covering the same period and all reasonably up to date. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would like to look into this aspect and so help the debating in this House.

I think he should.

I say this because the fortunes of the Public Service have altered quite considerably since the current report was drafted. We all remember the crisis years of 1973 to 1975 when, during times of a reasonably buoyant economy, the Public Service suffered from chronic understaffing. The private sector during that period gobbled up all who had even a smattering of technical or administrative professional experience. The following three years, from 1975 onwards, saw a change, for as the economic downtrend deepened and the private sector pulled in its horns, there was a backflow into the Public Service of trained personnel. The staffing crisis in the last three years has receded, but already, in June 1978, the end of the period covered by this report, the writing was on the wall. This is perceived by the commissioners, and I quote from para. 27 on pages 9 and 10 of the report for hon. members’ information—

and this is a significant comment—

The warning lights are all blinking at the present moment. Overtime hours that have been worked are up. The official establishment continues to grow, although more slowly than it has done in recent years. Resignations and staff losses are escalating, whilst on the other side of the scale appointments and recruitments are significantly, or at least marginally, down. Most alarming is the very poor retention rate maintained in respect of students qualifying with Public Service assistance, in particular the grave shortages developing in the administrative, technical, engineering and artisan spheres.

To add to the drain occasioned by the otherwise welcome upswing in the economy, other new factors have come into play. For instance, the two-year compulsory military training period has irretrievably deprived the country, and in particular the Public Service, of many thousands of man-years. This is a statistical fact. The drying up—we debated this earlier—of the flow of immigrants has been badly felt, in the public sector, in the administrative and technical areas. Another factor is that Sasol 2, the Saldanha project, Koeberg and other major developments in the semi-private sector draw heavily from the Public Service which provides the educational base from which the technicians move.

Must we stop it?

So I could go on enumerating the myriad difficulties, and consequently the numerous reasons why the Public Service suffers, and will suffer, manpower problems to an increasing degree. This would not be useful, however, because having identified the problem, what I believe is needed from this debate are some thoughts, some ideas, about how to overcome, or at least minimize, the damage suffered and the dangers that are looming.

If one wishes to cut down on the bureaucracy and rationalize the work of the Public Service, certainly the correct place to start is at the top. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister’s April announcement was welcomed, but it is not only at Cabinet level that pruning should take place. Much can be done to avoid, in our control-conscious Government, duplication of effort. For instance, in the field of sport alone—I quote this again because it is a field within my sphere of knowledge—no less than four departments and 16 to 18 different Government agencies control public funds to be spent by the central Government. Almost as much money is spent on salaries and administration in sport as on the direct promotion of sport itself. Surely, this must come to an end. I would welcome a progress report from the hon. the Minister on what is being done further to implement the hon. the Prime Minister’s intentions.

Secondly, while we all realize that the security offered in the service is excellent, the public sector has little chance of keeping up, let alone of running ahead, of private enterprise when it comes to salary scales and perks. This does not mean that nothing should be done. The machinery available to review salary structures in the light of new developments and changes in the economy is far too cumbersome and slow. There also exist many anomalies and anachronisms that are clearly capable of being eliminated. For instance, most private concerns pay generous leave bonuses, in some cases as much as an extra month’s pay, while the Public Service grants but a pittance in this respect. The maximum bonus, I believe, is R280 per annum. It is becoming an urgent necessity that a committee, a body or mechanism be established whose sole task it will be to ensure that the Public Service salaries, allowances, differential payments, fringe benefits and so on are consistently competitive.

Thirdly, more must be done as far as education and recruitment is concerned, especially amongst English-speakers. I believe that English-speakers do not play as dynamic a role in the Service as they could. It is a fact that public administration courses are offered largely at Afrikaans universities and colleges. The commission should try to initiate a change in this phenomenon. We cannot forever expect our Afrikaans compatriots to shoulder the whole burden of public administration in South Africa. I further believe that the time is ripe for an imaginative recruitment campaign and I believe that this will bear fruit. It is certainly worth trying.

Fourthly, I should like to tell hon. members what the Sandton town council did a few years ago. It eliminated all reference to race in its establishment and salary scales and operates today on a single consolidated structure. The result is that there are fewer staff shortages in the Sandton town council than in virtually any other municipal council in the Transvaal. There is a total lack of resentment at comparative salaries because differences are not based on colour. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his kind gesture. I believe the Public Service must not lag behind in the field of race relations. It is now time to commence working towards a consolidated non-racial salary structure based on merit for the job and on productivity. While it will not be the panacea for all ills, such a change of course could constitute yet another major step forward in normalising the public administration in South Africa.

Finally, on behalf of the official Opposition I want to thank the chairman, the members and the secretary of the commission and the public servants of South Africa all over the country for the valuable and dedicated work they perform in the service of our Republic.

Mr. Chairman, before I give attention to the speech made by the hon. member for Sandton, I want to associate myself with the words of congratulation to Mr. H. A. Prinsloo. I am privileged to know Mr. Prinsloo in his capacity as Secretary for Indian Affairs as well, and to have been able to co-operate and converse with him. I must say that the Free State has once again given our country a very fine product, as it often does. On behalf of hon. members on this side of the House and of the NP’s study group, I want to thank Mr. Prinsloo for all he did in the course of 45 years. It is really people like Mr. Prinsloo who make it easy for a politician to perform his own difficult task. 45 years ago brings us to the years of 1933 and 1934, which were difficult years, but good ones as well. In fact, I was born in one of those two years. We want to wish Mr. Prinsloo all the best for the years to come. We also want to congratulate Mr. H. P. J. van Vuuren, whom we already know as Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions. We want to say that he is very welcome to the ranks of the Public Service Commission. I trust that he will cooperate cordially with the Public Service Commission for many years and that he will make a great contribution to the welfare of the Public Service Commission and of public servants, just as he has cared for the welfare of the people at large.

I want to tell the hon. member for Sandton that I think his speech was better than his story in Punch, although one cannot agree with everything he said. I think he was a little unfair towards the hon. the Minister, who availed himself of a privilege and a right to make a statement at the beginning of the debate on matters of importance, of such importance that an announcement in this connection had of necessity to be made in Parliament. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in my opinion, this kind of statement is essential at this stage, and to a certain extent lends greater power and more publicity to this debate which we are now conducting.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I am sorry, but my time is very short.

You are afraid, aren’t you?

I just want to tell that hon. priest of Baal that he should give me a chance so that we may finish. I want to agree with the hon. member for Sandton about the question of the English-speaking people in our Public Service. I want to tell him that we on this side of the House would be very glad indeed if more English-speaking citizens were to join the Public Service. The hon. the Minister has also said on occasion that he would very much like to employ more English-speaking citizens in the Public Service. It is a pity that the hon. member referred to matters of race, colour and things of that nature at the end of his speech. I do not think it was necessary. The Government has committed itself, with the funds available to it, to the ideal of giving every person the salary which he deserves. We have set ourselves that ideal and we shall proceed in the normal way in our attempt to realize it.

I should like to continue my speech by quoting from the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in which he made an announcement about the rationalization of the Public Service. I do not apologize for this. A sensible man does not hesitate to quote a wise man. The hon. the Prime Minister said the following (Hansard, 19 April 1979, col. 4462)—

The hon. the Prime Minister then went on to say—

The rationalization of our Government administration is essential, therefore, because laws and the actuality of departments may decline or even disappear in the course of time. Furthermore, the ideals set in the past by a particular Government under specific circumstances are being realized, and new initiative is then required with a view to new planning and new strategies. There are several advantages attached to this. The first is that it eliminates duplication which can normally arise in any organization in the course of time. Furthermore, it contributes to better control of the people who assist with the Government administration. It also results in a more expeditious disposal of the tasks imposed on a Government and its administration. Moreover, it brings about a better utilization of staff, and in this way, greater and better opportunities are created for the officials. Furthermore, it is essential that our legislation be revised from time to time. All these things pave the way for better government. The administration of any modem country imposes a very great responsibility upon the politicians, but I think it places an even greater responsibility and a greater burden on the officials who have to translate the political policy of a particular Government into laws and to implement it in practice. We as politicians, as a Government, are only too aware of an ever-growing burden which we have to place upon our public servants in modem societies. For men may come and men may go, but the public servant simply has to go on.

Just like the NP.

Political parties may come and go, but the Government administration must go on. I can tell the public servants, though, that we have been governing for 30 years, and when I look at the Opposition, I think we shall govern for another 60 years. [Interjections.]

You are on the way down.

When we consider rationalization in respect of the Public Service, it is very important that we shall in all probability also have to look at the provincial administrations and at the local authorities. In the process, we shall also have to look at control boards, co-operatives and other semi-State institutions. When one starts somewhere, one must go the whole hog and look at the whole Government administration, and not only at the Public Service. I see the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is looking at me. We are not going to take away his portfolio.

Which control boards?

Let us examine all these things while we are examining one. We must make sure that all is still as it should be, and if everything is in order in the hon. the Minister’s department, things will continue as they are.

Hundred per cent.

Rationalization also means increasing efficiency. When we rationalize, therefore, it does not mean that we are dissatisfied with the Public Service and the Public Service Commission as we have known them over the years. On the contrary, one’s appreciation for one’s Government machinery is enhanced when one takes a critical look, not only at what they are doing now, but also at what they have done in the course of time. I want to quote a speech made by the chairman of the Public Service Commission before N.O.B.S. on 5 April 1978. He began by saying—

I agree with that wholeheartedly. Then he says—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, some time or other somebody should really conduct an in-depth study of the political mentality of members of the official Opposition.

So that you can learn from them.

These hon. members can never ever make any statement of policy without adding a rider to it.

Give us an example.

I shall give an example in a moment. Secondly, these hon. members are never satisfied with stating a case fairly on its merit or on the facts. They must always overstate a case.

*The hon. member for Pinelands asked me to give an example and I am now going to do so immediately in respect of everyone of these statements. The hon. member for Sandton referred to the problems experienced by the Public Service. I have no fault to find with his mentioning it, but he was not satisfied merely to state them as problems that the Public Service is experiencing. Inevitably he had to talk again about “a crisis that exists”. Surely there has never been a crisis, nor is there one now. Certain problems do exist, but why does the hon. member have to pretend in this House that there is a crisis in the Public Service? But it is typical of those hon. members, because they always have to put a case in stronger terms than the facts of the matter justify.

The other example which I want to give, is that the hon. member for Sandton also tried to present the policy of his party tonight. But time and again in the course of his address he used the little word “but”. He was unable to make a pertinent, unequivocal and unqualified statement with regard to their policy; every so often there had to be a “but”. Their statements always have to be qualified and explained. I have learnt that in politics, the moment one has to start explaining, then one has lost, as the PFP lost in Swellendam.

That is why you are trying to explain the Information scandal.

I want to come back to a discussion of the Public Service Commission as such. As the Public Service Commission is not a separate department it is very often wrongly regarded as a mere appendage. The fact is that the Public Service Commission is indeed a very important section. The fact that we discuss this Public Service Commission as a separate Vote emphasizes, in my opinion, the importance of the Public Service Commission. The Americans refer to the “business of government as being man’s largest and most difficult undertaking”. Graham Hutton writes, inter alia, as follows in the British magazine Management—

It is the first duty of a Government to govern.

Public administration is the resultant institutional peculiarity of a government enterprise and the industry of government. The annual report clearly shows the diversity and the scope of the activities of the Public Service Commission. During the past year the Public Service Commission had a special task with regard to the former Department of Information. In this regard I refer to page 10 and the subsequent page of the report. Without going into this matter in detail I want to make the categorical statement that in this regard the Public Service Commission has acquitted itself of its task with distinction. We have reason to be grateful for such a capable, diligent and efficient Public Service Commission. I believe it to be a disservice to the Public Service Commission, Public Servants and the whole country when, as happens sometimes, an image is projected of the Public Service Commission, as a hidebound, inefficient commission. This is of course an area in which random changes and experiments cannot be effected. The Public Service Commission must of necessity be largely consistent and conservative. At the same time, however, no hesitation is shown in effecting rational and justified adjustments, as is the case with the rationalization of the Public Service, for example.

With regard to the efficiency which the Public Service Commission must, and does, strive after at all times, I just want to quote from the annual report I believe it is as well that we pay a little attention to this. I quote (page 3)—

I believe this to be a fine summary of the approach of the Public Service Commission regarding efficiency.

It has become a popular cry in our time that certain services should be withdrawn from the control of the Public Service Commission. I wonder, however, what the position would have been if all services were to be taken away from the Public Service Commission.

Not all of them.

The hon. member says not all of them. I wonder, however, what the result would be if some of the services were to be withdrawn from the Public Service Commission. We would have an unhealthy rivalry between Government departments. There would be an unhealthy bidding for the services of officials, something which would not be in the interests of the administration of the country in general.

The objective is certainly eventually to have secretaries at the head of departments who will receive salaries that will be more in line with the salaries paid in the private sector. The State cannot afford to lose competent officials because their salaries or other benefits are not competitive. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to associate myself with the hon. members who congratulated Mr. Prinsloo and wished him everything of the best for the future. We hope he will have many fruitful years until he reaches retirement age.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay touched on certain matters to which I am going to refer in the course of my speech. It has now become customary for us to have very little time for this particular debate.

†However, the fact that we allocate approximately one hour to this debate does not necessarily mean that this is not an important debate as such. [Interjections.] The first point I should like to make is that how good and efficient the Civil Service is, is of course really a reflection on whether the Public Service Commission is maintaining a beneficial influence over the whole spectrum of the Civil Service.

The defunct Department of information, with all its escapades, also clearly illustrated to us to what extent a head of a department can get away with things without possibly the Minister, as the political head, knowing exactly what is going on. Hon. Ministers do not really want to know it, but it is of course a fact that they are as good or as bad as their departments. It cannot be different, because Ministers sometimes chop and change from one department to another. I have witnessed two or sometimes three moves in a year. It looks as if some Ministers do not even get enough time nowadays to stay longer in a department than just to find a new name for such department.

During the debate on this Vote last year I said that when the first announcements were made about the rationalization and evaluation of the situation in the now defunct Department of Information I was of the opinion that, at that time, the name of the Public Service Commission was perhaps abused in attempts to give some degree of respectability to certain actions carried out within the said department. Those actions, among other things, ultimately led to certain people going into premature retirement. However, I do not intend to rehash the merits of all these cases now. I should merely like to point out that what has happened subsequently has in fact strengthened my suspicions in this connection. However, since the chief political personalities who were involved are no longer with us, I would rather let the matter rest there. Nevertheless, it is my conviction that the time has now come for Parliament to be given a re-assurance by the Public Service Commission that the very factors and conditions which enabled Dr. Rhoodie to act in the way in which he did, and to get away with it administratively, no longer exist and that a recurrence of all that has happened will not be possible at all.

It has become a custom among Opposition speakers to use this particular debate in order to plead for the exclusion of certain professions from the control of the Public Service Commission. Before I do so, however, I should first like to stress that I believe a country needs a central body of control such as our Public Service Commission. I do believe that the Public Service Commission is fulfilling a very useful purpose in holding together this vast mosaic of scattered departments of State to which we refer as the Public Service. I should also like to state that I welcome the announcement made by the hon. the Minister in connection with rationalization of the Public Service. Like the hon. member for Sandton, I also find it somewhat difficult to deal fully with all the facets touched upon by the hon. Minister during the course of this very short debate. However, we in the NRP have always advocated the principle of rationalization of the Public Service. I agree that reducing the number of State departments from 43 to 18 is in fact a major undertaking. Firstly, I do not believe this will in any way lead to unemployment. However, be that as it may, the Public Service Commission has my sincere sympathy in this regard. Through the years it has been clear that one of the major results of the proliferation of State departments is the building up, by each individual department, of its own little empire, if I could put it that way. Perhaps this should be regarded as being only natural. To a certain extent it will be the task of the Public Service Commission to abolish these so-called little empires.

The easiest way out, I should think, will merely be to try to create 18 super departments of State. However, that would definitely turn out to be counter-productive, because the whole structure will still be unhealthy. The one advantage, I believe, the department has derived from this whole situation is that it has now been placed in a position where it can now really begin to devise new and realistic post structures for the Public Service. Hand in hand with that, of course, goes a realistic salary structure. Having to deal with only 18 heads of departments—I am not going to refer to them now as super departments—it will be possible for the hon. the Minister’s department to find 18 top men who will really be capable of handling the all-embracing activities of each of those departments. As I have already stated, those 18 top men could in many respects be more important than the 18 Cabinet Ministers we already have, particularly when it comes to the proper handling of the day-to-day activities of those departments in a democratic society as we know it.

[Inaudible.]

Well, that is the way departments of State should function in a democratic society. There is something else I should also like to know. When this announcement was made, what prior feasibility studies had been made? We had an announcement here today which, as I have said, I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for, but I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to be very careful. In the amalgamation of the departments there must always be a common denominator. Before I deal with the question of a common denominator, however, let me say that when various departments are amalgamated the general public should, at all times, be informed well in advance.

I think it would, to a certain extent, be in the interests of the commission to make a point of testing public opinion about the merging of some of the departments. I shall now point out the reason why. Many departments deal with the daily lives of people, and an amalgamation of certain departments could lead to unnecessary inconvenience. I therefore do not want to see this done secretly, with the presents later given, in the style of a Father Christmas, to the general public. Rather tell the people what to expect.

As I have said, there should be a common denominator involved. Let me illustrate the point. About five or six years ago, I think, the Department of Higher Education and the Department of Cultural Affairs were amalgamated. Sometimes, in such amalgamations, it is difficult to find out what the common denominator is. For example, what is the common denominator between universities and zoos which just happen to fall under the same department? Is the common denominator to be found in the characteristics of the professors and the monkeys, the students and the monkeys or perhaps the monkeys and the political head of the projected department? I do not know. This is, however, the kind of problem one could encounter from time to time.

*Just briefly again an old plea of mine. Somebody said that when I spoke I would advocate the police being withdrawn from the control of the Public Service Commission. In fact, I believe that both the police and education could be relieved from that control, for the nature and character of those professions are such that they cannot readily be compared. There has recently been talk of the ideal salary structure which teachers had been promised, but which could not be implemented. One of the reasons why it could not be implemented, was that the Director of Education, for example, if the ideal structure were to be implemented, would earn something like R1 200 more than a secretary for a province. It is because one always has that kind of problem of relating things of that kind to one another, that one really has major problems. When it comes to the adjustment of salaries from time to time, one should, in my opinion, be very honest with one’s Public Servants.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you very much to the hon. Whip on the Government side. When adjustments are effected, it should rather be stated that the increases would be between 116% and 12% or 15%. It is so easy to say across the floor of this House that all Public Servants will get 10%. Then obviously, all Public Servants expect 10%.

We did not say that.

But the emphasis is continuously laid on a figure of 10%, and that is a figure which is compared to all kinds of other figures, like the cost of living index, etc. Then it happens—as was mentioned here last Friday—that some chief magistrates get 1,3%, etc. The department and the commission should rather adopt the attitude that it would be much better to be able to look officials straight in the eye the day after the increases. Then they would have more con tented officials and not disappointed ones.

†Let me put it this way. They can do a lot of public relations work in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central has made a few very interesting remarks in the peaceful atmosphere of this evening’s debate. I want to tell the hon. member that it is very easy to say that certain departments or groups of people should be removed from the Public Service Commission. I think the hon. member would do well to spend his time during the recess taking a calm, realistic and scientific look at the origin and functions of the Public Service Commission. Then he can come back next year and indicate, in the light of the knowledge he has acquired during the recess, why the present situation is best.

When I was speaking a short while ago, I quoted from a speech by the chairman of the Public Service Commission, and I want to quote from it again—

I want to agree wholeheartedly with this statement. It is very easy in our society today, when a mistake is made somewhere, to blame it all on the Public Service, or too easy to say that we are moving in the direction of a bureaucracy. I think we should stop referring to the activities and functions of the Public Servants in such a superficial way.

I want to refer hon. members to Schedule Q of the annual report of the Public Service Commission, where the paid overtime of Public Servants is indicated. It is surprising how much overtime public servants put in to serve the community. However, what is not indicated, but nevertheless mentioned, is the unpaid overtime that public servants contribute to our national administration. We greatly appreciate the fact that there are so many idealists within the State machinery. One can only be grateful for this, and hon. members on this side of the House would be the first to give the public servants as much money as possible if more were available. We appreciate the work they do. I want to add that we as Parliamentarians also greatly appreciate the parliamentary staff of the various departments who come to Cape Town every year for the parliamentary session. I have been a member of Parliament for the past 13 years, and I must say that in the dozens of times I have picked up a telephone to contact an official or have gone to see him personally I have never come across an unfriendly face there or turned back without having accomplished anything. In saying this, I think I am expressing the great appreciation of us all.

What is also important to me is that our Public Service, in the time that I have known it, does not have a strike mentality. One does not find the mentality among public servants when their increases have not been what they would have wanted, or when they feel, rightly perhaps, that they have not received their fair share, that they hold a sword over the head of authority by wanting to strike. I think we must also have great appreciation for this idealism and for the way in which the Public Servants approach such matters. When we look at the criticism expressed by the leaders of the public servants—and I think other sectors would do well to take note of this— the criticism is usually very sober and restrained.

In speaking of rationalization, it is gratifying to know that rationalization is not going to be built on a vacuum. It is not as if we were going to grope in the dark in our attempt to rationalize the Government machinery. We know that over the years a very sound foundation has been laid within the Government machinery and by the Public Service Commission, and I want to refer in this connection to pages 46 and 47 of the annual report of the Public Service Commission, where they report, under the heading Determination of Procedures, about the commission’s activities with regard to mechanization investigations, work study, efficiency techniques and legislation, regulations and codes. Under the heading “Control” there are methods such as inspections of departments/organizational investigations, delegations and so forth. One could quote this information, which is contained under brief headings on these two pages, but every word it says here implies hard and conscientious work on the part of knowledgeable people.

I think that even we as hon. members, with all the knowledge and experience we have gained over the years, will feel a little small in a certain sense when we walk into a public servant’s office and find men there who not only have the necessary scientific and academic training, but also keep a watchful eye on the State machinery and who have a reply for us concerning apparent problems which one may want to point out to them. One greatly appreciates this.

Another important fact is that in a modem State, the Public Service and the State machinery are in a certain sense the heart around which the whole community can live, because the Public Service has a special association with the individual, the family, education, the legal profession, the Government, welfare and the economy. In Africa, the Public Service has ties with the underdeveloped and developing countries. In this connection, the Public Service of South Africa has an enormously important role to play.

The hon. the Minister announced today that three people were to be appointed by the Government from the private sector to consult with the Public Service Commission on a regular basis for a period of three years. I want to tell him that this is welcomed, for in this way, the private sector can be involved in the activities of the Public Service. It is a very sound policy which we ought to follow.

One is grateful for the work done by the Public Service Commission to bring the Public Service to the attention of all the sectors of our community, for example at our universities.

I want to conclude by quoting from a speech by Dr. Rautenbach. I certainly could not have put it any better. He concluded his speech as follows—

I want to express the wish that we as Parliamentarians may take to heart this message of Dr. Rautenbach and that we may make our contributions personally and on behalf of our parties, not only to do justice to the work done by our Public Service, but also to help them to the best of our ability in their very difficult task.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik dealt with certain matters. In the course of my speech I shall deal with some of those matters as well. The hon. member spoke about the overtime worked by the officials without remuneration. I want to say that we have the highest appreciation for that. This evening we again have officials with us. They work many hours of overtime and I am sure that they are not remunerated for that overtime. We appreciate the fact that they sit with us until late at night. We receive nothing but friendliness and politeness from the officials and for that, too, we are grateful. The Public Service still has a much greater role to play and a greater service to render throughout the whole of Southern Africa, and especially in countries where the level of development has not yet reached that of South Africa.

†At the outset I want to thank the commission for making this detailed report available to us. I want to take this opportunity to wish Mr. Prinsloo and his family well and to thank them for the lifetime of service they have devoted to South Africa and the administration of South Africa. I also want to congratulate Mr. Van Vuuren on his appointment to the commission. We already have experience of his sympathetic and efficient attitude and we have no doubt that he has a valuable contribution to make towards the functioning of the commission.

The hon. the Prime Minister has said and the hon. the Minister said tonight that they want to modernize and improve the structure of the department falling under the Public Service Commission. The intention seems to be, if I remember the last speech of the hon. the Prime Minister correctly, to endeavour to reduce the number of departments to 18. We appreciate the fact that the departmental heads and the Public Service Commission will obviously have to play a major part in giving South Africa the most modem and efficient machinery possible. We welcome the announcement by the hon. the Minister that there will be closer co-operation between the private sector and the Public Service Commission. We consider it to be a very worthwhile step that a limited number of retired officers who previously occupied posts in the Public Service will be appointed on a part-time basis to undertake certain special assignments. This means that some of our most experienced retired officials can give us invaluable assistance from time to time. I do not want to detail names, but I think hon. members will forgive me if I just give one example by way of illustration. I should like to mention Mr. Browne, the former Secretary for Finance, who was appointed, amongst other appointments, to investigate the financial position of local authorities. This is a situation which requires months, if not years, of specialized study, and I cannot see how the present Secretary can do his day-to-day work and still do detailed, personalized investigations of this nature. That is why I welcome the fact that retired officers of the department are standing in and assisting us in this type of work. I believe that our full-time staff have so much day-to-day work to attend to that they do not have the necessary time to undertake the sort of detailed investigation Mr. Browne is busy with at the moment.

A matter which perturbs us is staff losses. This obviously perturbs the Public Service Commission as well, because they make a feature of it on page 8 of the report, where they mention that, from 1 July 1972 to 30 June 1978, 65 084 people were appointed and that during the same period 64 428 people were lost, representing a net gain of only 656 people. This means that the Public Service could only retain 1,01% of the 65 084 appointments made over a six-year period. In terms of loss of experience, the ratio of staff losses indicates that the Public Service sustained a loss of 176 535 man-years during the six-year period. This is a very sad situation as it must affect efficiency and, obviously, the cost structure. Having trained people to hold a certain position, it costs the Government a great deal of money if these people are then lost to them, as it means that the investment has gone down the drain. In addition, the person one loses, has some experience in his position while the new man, who must take his place, is probably less experienced. This must have an affect on the efficiency of the Public Service. It is obvious that the prospects of a position in the Public Service must be made far more attractive and it is also obvious that, as the person continues in the Public Service, he must earn his promotion on merit and he must earn a salary commensurate with what he would expect after having been in the Public Service for so many years.

There are particular sectors which are of concern to us and, obviously, I do not have time to deal with all of them. Let me just say that teachers, nurses and the police feel that they are getting a raw deal. There may well be others who feel they are getting a raw deal. The nurses, as the hon. the Minister is aware, do not all fall under the provincial administration, and they are totally inadequately paid and want a new deal. It is therefore obvious that an in-depth investigation must be done, and we should like to know from the hon. the Minister what sort of in-depth investigation is being done in regard to the various Public Service sectors.

Let us take the police as an example. In answer to a question, we were told that 3 377 men joined file Police Force in 1978 whilst 2 172 purchased their discharge. We are concerned that the bulk of these people are leaving because of insufficient pay. I welcome the hon. the Minister’s announcement that there will be closer co-ordination and co-operation and meetings between the police and the Public Service Commission. The police are a very vital part of our defence and our security structure. The training of 2 172 men must have been done at considerable expense to the State. It is therefore of importance to establish why these men purchased their discharge and to make every effort to ensure, within the bounds of reasonableness, that this situation is contained and does not continue. The person who joins the Police Force is aware of the fact that it requires a special dedication and a preparedness to serve South Africa irrespective of personal danger. During recent years the police and their families have been under particular stress and strain. The people stirring up trouble have become more sophisticated in the treachery they perpetrate. It stands to reason that policemen have to make sacrifices, and their families often have to suffer as a result.

It will be remembered that in past debates the SAP have pleaded for the police and the armed forces, because of their particular position, not to be subject to the restrictions of the Public Service Commission. It will also be recalled that we were told in those debates that it was not possible to remove them from the aegis of the Public Service Commission. It was also indicated to us that the Public Service Commission was doing its best for these particular forces. I should like to appeal to the Public Service Commission to have a special in-depth investigation into the particular problems of the police and the other departments I have mentioned. It is essential that one must have a contented and productive Public Service which can render the best service to South Africa. I have no doubt that most of the people who join the Public Service are people of the right calibre for the Public Service, and I think it is important that we should retain their services. It is also obvious that in a large employment sector such as the Public Service, there will be drop-outs. I feel that drop-outs should be allowed to leave and that the sooner they leave, the better. On average, the bulk of the people who join the Public Service do so because they want to serve South Africa in some capacity or other. We must accept that there is always a small percentage of dropouts in any service anywhere in the world.

Yes, even in Parliament!

My hon. colleague says that we even have them in Parliament.

The Government has taken a declared stand in relation to various reports published, and also to eliminate the wage gap. I realize that the availability of finance is to a large extent a determining factor in eliminating file wage gap. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is possible for him to tell us over what period of time he estimates that the wage gap can be eliminated in the Public Service or, if it is impossible to estimate that at this point in time, I would appreciate hearing from him in that regard. Besides the closing of the wage gap being a fair approach, it is also an economic factor which will increase consumer spending power and assist to some extent in the stimulation of the economy. Productivity increases and salary increases should also be a feature of the Public Service, as the two obviously go together. I take it that those factors are taken into account. The Public Service Commission has a vital role to play in the service of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer and other speakers in this House made numerous references in the course of the debate to the statement by the hon. the Minister concerning the rationalization of the Public Service and the staff situation of the Public Service in general. The hon. member will pardon me if I do not react to that because in the short time at my disposal I should like to cause the spotlight to fall on the other and, in my opinion, extremely important subject relating to the Public Service to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred on 19 April. I refer to the closer liaison between the private sector and the Public Service. I want to refer very briefly to the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister. He referred, inter alia, to the necessity of creating a spirit of co-operation and goodwill between the Government bodies and the private sector and the academics of our country. In view of this I think it can only be welcomed that in his statement earlier this evening, the hon. the Minister mentioned the first steps in this direction. It is illuminating that three people from the private sector are to be approached to make themselves available for periodic meetings, for a say in the activities of the Public Service Commission and for consultation with other heads of State departments. I should like to express the hope that this first step will lead to a still greater degree of involvement in our public sector on the part of the private sector. Again I want to quote briefly from the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister in which he puts the question without furnishing a final answer “… whether the time is not perhaps ripe to give one or two representatives a permanent seat in the Public Service Commission”. I should like to express the hope that if this first step of periodic advisory meetings with specific leading figures from the private sector seems successful, a more permanent basis of liaison will follow. I think that every developing country—every country that is becoming a modem industrial country, as our land is— should be constantly on guard against the tendency for its Public Service to continue to expand and overshadow more areas of society.

The danger lies in the fact that a growing bureaucracy in such a Government system could also lead to a greater degree of socialization and a greater tendency towards socialism. In my opinion this is the most gratifying aspect of both of these statements by the hon. the Prime Minister, from which the statements by the hon. the Minister ensued. It is as well that there should be closer investigation of the governmental structure from time to time. Since rationalization and a reduction in the number of State departments are being discussed, here, then, such an investigation is very clearly in progress. Whereas closer liaison with the private sector is being discussed, there is a clear indication that the Government is going to restrict timeously every possible development in the direction of a socialist state system—something which our country has thus far been fortunate enough to escape to a large extent.

It seems as if we do agree about something.

I am very grateful that the hon. member for Durban Central and I are in agreement on this score, because there are very few other spheres in which we do in fact agree. [Interjections.]

We often hear, both in this House and elsewhere, that we believe in the idea of free enterprise and the system of free enterprise. Without going into detail I should like to refer in passing to specific examples. They show very clearly that we in South Africa are engaged in developing a pattern in which the State, the public sector and the private sector can begin to work alongside each other as partners and need not continually regard each other as rivals in the acquisition of staff and as competitors in many other spheres.

Apart from the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister—in which he shows appreciation and an understanding of this need—we already see this idea of partnership in the Department of Defence and the use by Armscor by private industry. Moreover, in the recent announcement on the expansion of Sasol 2 and the involvement of the private sector in this regard we have seen signs of the State’s growing understanding of the value of the role which the private sector can play.

In the same statement by the hon. the Prime Minister, mention was also made of greater utilization of the skills of the business and industrial sector and of academics with regard to the consolidation of the homelands. Moreover, over the past week it has become quite clear from the new course adopted with regard to labour matters that the private sector is once again to be involved with regard to the composition of the envisaged manpower board. Indeed, in the field of labour one could say that our labour system will in future clearly be orientated more towards the private sector than towards the State.

I think that a system of partnership between the public sector and file private sector could be of the greatest importance to both. In this regard I could perhaps just refer briefly to what one of the well-known figures in our free enterprise system, Mr. J. G. van der Horst, said in Pietermaritzburg in October last year. He referred to the increasing prosperity of the Western world and stated specifically that the expansion of the system of free enterprise and the rise of the middleclass that accompanied it was a prerequisite for the degree of prosperity achieved by the Western World in the ’seventies. Citing examples from ancient history, he pointed out that even in the time of the old Roman and Greek civilizations the development of a middle-class and of a system of private enterprise was a prerequisite for the growth of those civilizations.

A partnership between the private and public sectors could be of exceptional value to the public sector because in contrast to the public sector, the private sector may have to be more efficiency-minded, particularly in view of the competitive situation in which it finds itself and due to the profit motive from which it derives its entire raison d’ être.

If, therefore, it is possible for the State to involve experts from the private sector in the composition of the Public Service, it is possible that in this way it will obtain the aid of experts particularly with a view to the adoption of more effective methods of attracting appropriate personnel. With a view to training, too, the public sector could perhaps obtain useful advice in this way. Since it is very often the case in the private sector that time is money, the public sector, too, could possibly obtain advice with regard to the effective utilization of time. The same applies with regard to certain specific conditions of service. It is perhaps obvious that the public sector could obtain valuable advice from the private sector with regard to bonuses—incentive bonuses of which hon. members have already made mention—fringe benefits, medical and pension benefits, and so on. However, it is not only for the sake of the State that a partnership situation between the public and private sectors is virtually essential. For the private sector itself, too … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before coming back to a few other matters, I just wish to comment briefly on a remark made earlier this evening by the hon. member for Sandton and a statement by the hon. member for Durban Central.

I agree with the Statement by the hon. member for Sandton that the English-speaking section of the population are not satisfactorily represented in the Public Service. However, the hon. member for Sandton then went on to attribute this fact to the alleged situation that the only courses in public administration were given at Afrikaans-language universities. However I want to put it to him for his consideration that the fact that these courses are only offered at Afrikaans universities is not the cause of this phenomenon but rather the result.

That goes without saying.

It is because the necessary interest in this field of study is lacking among English-speaking people that courses are not offered at English-speaking universities. The fact that the courses are not offered is not the cause. It is the result.

That was not my argument.

Whether it was the hon. member’s argument or not is difficult to determine, because it seems to me that every time the hon. member speaks he subsequently has to explain what his arguments in fact were. [Interjections.]

I now come to what the hon. member for Durban Central had to say. He said that we should not withdraw all the services from the control of the Public Service Commission, but that we should withdraw the police and the teachers.

And the Defence Force too.

Very well then, the Defence Force as well. However the hon. member did not spell out to us specifically why these three services had to be withdrawn. However, I take it that his motive was that these are services that relate to specific fields.

Their nature and character are entirely different.

He states that their nature and character are completely different.

That is it.

However I can very well imagine that there are many other services or branches, too, whose nature and character are totally different to that of the Public Service in General. If his argument is to be accepted, then we should have to exclude those branches as well and if we were to carry on with this process there would hardly be a service left which would not be justified in saying that its nature and character are so distinctive that they must be excluded from the control of the Public Service Commission. We must not start a process of erosion. We should rather leave the situation as it is.

I now turn to the matter which I was discussing when my time expired during my first speech. I was telling the Committee that the State cannot afford to lose capable officials because their salaries and/or other benefits are not competitive. For effective functioning it is an absolute requirement that the Public Service should be properly manned in quantity as well as quality. It still occurs that the implementation and execution of government schemes is delayed because the necessary staff are not available. In other words, it seems as if there is a shortage of the necessary staff in various departments from time to time and that existing posts cannot be filled. One is aware that the Public Service Commission goes to great lengths to ensure that the staff is at full strength, inter alia, through the awarding of study bursaries to students who later enter the service of the State.

My impression is that unfortunately it occurs too often that the services of holders of Public Service bursaries are lost to the State, in that students studying with Public Service bursaries do not enter the service of the State after they have completed their studies but instead repay the amount advanced to them because they get married, or for some other reason. It seems too that it may be as well, and a necessary step, to investigate this situation in depth. In these times when study costs are rising steadily I also suggest that consideration be given to the size of the study bursaries made available and whether more study bursaries should not be made available in order to ensure that more trained, qualified students enter the service of the State. This must, however, be done taking into account the remarks I have just made in regard to qualified students leaving the Public Service.

Another subject I want to touch on briefly is the issue of the naming of State departments. I believe that the rationalization of State departments goes together with the naming of State departments. I take it that it is the rule that the names of State departments are considered by the Public Service Commission. It is desirable that the recommendations of the Public Service Commission be accepted in this regard or that their recommendations should not be lightly passed over.

I conclude by expressing thanks and appreciation towards the great body of dedicated, dutiful, honest and capable officials who, in spite of the turmoil and rumours in recent times, continued to meet their obligations and carry out their duties faithfully and in an exemplary fashion. In these times, when in some uninformed and also ill-disposed circles, doubt has been cast on certain Government departments and their officials, we have taken note with great appreciation of the fact that our officials in general have not allowed themselves to be upset or antagonized by these rumours, misgivings and questionings but have carried on doing their duty in a calm and orderly fashion. By so doing they have showed and proved once again that South Africa has a corps of officials of which any country could justifiably be proud. In conclusion, then, I wish to convey my sincere thanks to the officials. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, hon. members will pardon me if I first make a number of general remarks on matters they have already been raised in their speeches. Afterwards I shall reply specifically to particular questions which they asked. In the first place, I think it is clearly apparent from the latest and previous annual reports of the Public Service Commission that the manpower problem is one of the most obvious problems we are confronted with. The hard facts of the matter are unfortunately that in spite of the recent economic recession, it was not possible to make good the staff losses of previous years. I admit this candidly. In my opinion the statistics in the annual report offer a wonderful testimonial to increased productivity by a depleted corps of officials. In this connection let us also pay special tribute to those officials of the Republic who are performing a Herculean task in developing States, both within and outside our national borders. When we pray for our Defence Force men and women in the danger zones, we must also think of the officials, their wives and children who live and work courageously in those dangerous conditions, in many cases for far longer periods than national servicemen. In these distressing times we should say a special prayer for them as well.

Naturally there are no easy solutions to the manpower shortage.

†More and better training of public servants is one of the more obvious and perhaps the most positive of the steps which can be taken to relieve the manpower shortage. Increased attempts are therefore being made by means of bursary awards for university training, technician training and various in service training schemes to develop the available manpower to its fullest potential. At present 3 360 students and officers are studying with Public Service Commission bursaries and more than 1 500 pupil technicians and others are receiving technical training. Training is, of course, provided for all population groups, but in view of their particular circumstances and needs special attention is being given to the development of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians.

While the Public Service, as many other employers, was in the past mainly dependent on trained White manpower for rendering services to all population groups, the practical implementation of Government policy has meant that more and more Blacks, Coloureds and Indians are being employed. In the short-term these measures have placed further demands on public servants, as there is of necessity a heavy reliance on the almost 3 000 seconded Whites for training development and guidance. With the establishment of a Public Service in South West Africa and the rendering of assistance to Venda on its becoming independent, the number of seconded White officials will increase.

Apart from training, various other measures have been designed to use the available manpower to its full capacity. Some of these are well known, e.g. scientific selection and placement, staff evaluation, promotion on merit and modem management techniques, etc. Bonus incentive systems, which have been developed under the guidance of the Public Service Commission and of which 195 are at present being applied in different fields throughout the Republic, have increased production considerably. An added advantage of the bonus systems is that the potential of the otherwise mediocre performer is more fully realized.

Pursuant to the policy directives on rationalization in the Public Service already announced by the hon. the Prime Minister, and in order to limit the Public Service’s demand for manpower, solutions to the problem are also being sought along other lines. With the assistance of 345 full-time work study officers in Government departments who work under the guidance of the commission’s inspectorate, work procedures are investigated, simplified, combined and, wherever possible, eliminated.

*When thought is given to staff shortages and the motivation of staff, the solution is also sought in improved salaries and conditions of service. Although this is not always the whole answer it has for the Public Service—in fact for the entire Government sector—become a matter to which special attention has been given in recent times and a matter to which, so I presume, even more attention will be given in future.

Primarily as a result of economic factors, a salary disparity in comparison with both the private sector as well as certain Government institutions has arisen over the years. This disparity is not the same for all occupation groups. In fact, in the case of certain occupations the disparity is not a material one. In the occupation in which the salary disparities are exceptionally great, however, the Public Service is losing some of its most competent and most experienced officers in perturbing numbers. For obvious reasons this situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

†In order to restrict possible disparities in the salaries applicable in various institutions within the public sector and in order to prevent large staff losses to such institutions, the Government has authorized the commission to fulfil particular co-ordinating functions in regard to salaries. In addition, and in order to ensure that a fair salary is paid to all suitably qualified productive public servants, the Government has decided that the gap between the salaries of White and non-White public servants must be eliminated in phases, starting from 1 April 1979. The effect hereof is that managerial personnel in certain professions received salary parity, or were brought close to parity, as from 1 April 1979.

*For several years it was the practice to grant the same percentage salary increases to everyone in the Government sector. Although salary improvements—which are percentagewise the same for everyone—appear at first glance to be fair because everyone is compensated in the same proportion for the rising cost of living, it constitutes serious disadvantages for the Public Service as such.

Percentage adjustments in general have no bearing on the various fluctuating factors which necessitate amended salary rates. Repeated percentage adjustments also entailed untenable structural problems for the Public Service.

It was apparent for a long time that if the Public Service, with the limited funds available for salary purposes, was to be made more competitive, a distinction would to a greater extent than in the past, have to be drawn between the salaries for the various occupations. It was also clear that for each of the approximately 600 different occupations in the Public Service, a separate, made-to-measure structure would have to be developed according to need.

Data obtained from a participation by the Public Service Commission in various salary surveys, and the analysis of the staff statistics of the Public Service—particularly those pertaining to staff turnover—provided certain guidelines for this task. In addition the most important bottlenecks in the salary structures were identified, as well as the levels on which stagnation occurred. Inter alia, the lengths of salary scales and the numerical distribution of the staff over these scales were examined.

This data, together with the available data on the work evaluation, enabled the Public Service Commission, as from 1 April this year, to apply a greater occupation differentiation than in the past as well as new salary structures in the Public Service. For the present, and it is to be hoped for the future as well, there is consequently no question any more of percentage adjustments. That all the problems pertaining to salaries have been eliminated in that way is unfortunately not possible. Besides the fact that funds are limited, we must accept that in such a sensitive field as salaries, problems and bottlenecks can arise from time to time. Greater occupation differentiation is, however, a step in the right direction, and in our unique situation of trained staff shortages, it is a more justifiable one.

The Government has confidence in the counsel and line which the present Public Service Commission is indicating in an effort to establish a better Public Service for South Africa. Without an effective Public Service corps, the best-laid plans will miscarry when they are implemented. An effective Public Service requires effective staff administration, that is why it is necessary for the Public Service Commission to take skilful charge in matters of this nature and to remain in charge. To be able to do so the capacity of its Secretariat will have to be broadened and it will have to ensure that it keeps abreast of developments elsewhere in the world. Consequently it is appropriate that the office of the Public Service Commission is at present being subjected to a comprehensive inspection and that the chairman and a senior staff member have just returned from an extensive study tour of six overseas countries. Because the chairman of the Public Service Commission, like any other Free Stater, is a person who does his thing without advertising, I believe that it will be possible to utilize the results of these two actions, as we have them up to now, quietly and without fuss to the benefit of the Public Service.

Who has the Currie Cup?

That Transvaler should not talk too soon.

I feel myself called upon to raise a matter which has repeatedly been mooted, both by the former and the present Prime Minister, i.e. that the frequent pleas and representations that are being made to the effect that certain institutions should be removed from the authority of the commission, are not conducive to orderly and efficient administration. I want to make it very clear that the Public Service Commission is not a fortuitous or isolated institution, but is an institution of Parliament. It derives its mandate from and is accountable to Parliament Consequently, efforts to diminish the role of the commission not only affect the institution as such, but also weaken parliamentary control and make it difficult. Therefore I want to make it very clear that the Government will not allow any diminution of the commission’s role as central staff authority in the government sector.

I want to express my sincere thanks to the chairman and members of the Public Service Commission, as well as to its secretary, for the loyal, hard and imaginative work they have done during the past year.

To every public servant I also convey my sincere appreciation for their hard and loyal work. The officials have done exceptional work in the fact of many problems and challenges and have in the process produced millions of hours of voluntary and unremunerated labour. Before I proceed to reply to hon. members’ questions, I want to ask both sides of the House and all media to take these facts into consideration and to refrain from petty criticism of the Public Service, from generalized criticism. Rewarding and challenging work awaits us. We have to rationalize and expand. Let us all contribute to this in a spirit of appreciation and with a positive approach.

I come now to the specific questions asked by hon. members.

†The hon. member for Sandton complained about the late report. The position is that the year of reporting previously ended on 31 December. Due to the problem of getting statistics available before the end of the session of Parliament, the reporting year has now been changed to the end of June of each year. The hon. member must bear in mind that the decentralization of personnel administration of various departments is causing problems in the assembling of statistics. Changing the reporting year might therefore cause the dating of statistics even further. We shall nevertheless investigate the matter.

*The hon. member could not resist the temptation to advocate an integrated Public Service in a round-about way. [Interjections.] The hon. member referred to the integrated service of his municipality. [Interjections.] In this connection I want to say that we are going to receive a new constitutional dispensation. As far as the Government’s proposals are concerned, which are already available in regard to the new constitutional dispensation, we have again made specific provision for the establishment of a Public Service Commission, as was also done in the 1909 Constitution Act. That Public Service Commission will obviously have to be the co-ordinating body in respect of the officials of all the Parliaments participating in the new structure. I am certain that in the not too distant future the new Public Service Commission under the new dispensation will work out a dispensation for the Public Service which will be the most appropriate one in the then prevailing circumstances.

I come now to the hon. member for Rissik. I want to thank him for one thing to which he drew specific attention and which I forgot to emphasize in my speeches or statements. The rationalization we envisage for the Public Service should not be confined to the Public Service. I really think—and on this score I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member—that provincial councils, divisional councils, local governments—all councils with a semi-public character—should take cognizance of this. They are very welcome to draw on the experience of the Public Service Commission, for we really have experts on this matter there. They, too, should follow the example of the Public Service in order to rationalize as much as possible. In this way we shall be able to rationalize over the entire spectrum of the State administration and in that way save manpower and money.

I come next to the hon. member for Mossel Bay. I do not want to reproach the hon. member for the one misunderstanding which he created here. After all, he had to think on his feet this evening during his two turns to speak. Yet I want to point out that the hon. member was not quite correct in regard to universities which offer public administration as a field of study. There are English-language universities, for example the University of Cape Town, that also offer the subject.

He allowed himself to be taken in tow by the hon. member for Sandton.

The hon. member for Sandton said there were few English-language universities that offered this subject. In this connection I should like to give my whole-hearted support to the appeal made by the hon. member for Sandton, namely that more English-speaking people should enter the Public Service and that more English-language universities should teach this subject On behalf of the Public Service Commission I wish to give the assurance that if there are hon. members on the Opposition side, or even English-speaking persons in the private or public sectors who wish to offer the Public Service Commission any suggestions in this connection, the Public Service Commission will be only too willing to listen to them and, as far as possible, co-operate with them in this regard.

Furthermore, I want to thank the hon. member for Mossel Bay for his special word of appreciation to the Public Service Commission. Then I also want to thank him for advocating more and larger bursaries. I want to thank him for doing so, and I want it placed on record in Hansard, so that I can approach the hon. the Minister of Finance for more funds in this connection. Owing to cost increases it is necessary for these bursaries to be increased. I thank the hon. member for having broached this matter.

On the question of names I just want to point out that it is the task of the Public Service Commission to exercise control over this matter. The Public Service Commission investigates the matter very scientifically. Sometimes the Public Service Commission is taken in tow a little by some of my colleagues, who become emotional over certain names, and it so happens that the name chosen by the Public Service Commission is not always accepted. However it is very clear that we cannot simply keep on altering the names. I shall also use my influence in the Cabinet to check this tendency. [Interjections.]

Today it is Co-operation and Recreation. What will it be tomorrow? [Interjections.]

This brings me to the hon. member for Durban Central. In reply to one of his questions, I want to point out to him that we passed the Secret Services Account Act—Act No. 56 of 1978—last year. This is an Act which facilitates control over secret funds. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister has also, in one of his speeches here in this House, announced that other arrangements are also being made in cases where more than one Minister exercises control over secret funds. What it amounts to therefore, is a measure of collective responsibility. As a person who attends meetings of the Security Council, I can give the hon. member the assurance that in future there will be a greater measure of collective responsibility in regard to the handling of secret funds.

†The Public Service Commission is fully aware of the problems and the pitfalls in connection with rationalization and is approaching this with all the seriousness which an important and far-reaching matter of this nature deserves. As I have already announced, we will consult with the private sector in order to ensure that our best brain power will be applied to the solving of this problem.

*Furthermore, I want to point out that the Public Service Commission has special experts in this sphere. Consequently they are approaching this matter in an exceptionally modem way, a way which testifies to a very sound grasp of the matter. Inter alia, they already have the cordial co-operation of all departmental heads in this respect. Thus, this matter is being tackled in a scientific and purposeful way, and on a broad basis.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether a time-table of some kind has been drawn up, from which we can get an indication of when the process of rationalization will be finalized?

Mr. Chairman, at this stage there is no time-table. However, I can assure hon. members opposite that the hon. the Prime Minister is an excellent administrator and that, without doubt, he always finalizes matters far sooner than one can expect from any time-table. I assure hon. members that we are working in top gear in order to finalize this process of rationalization as soon as possible. But hon. members must also realize that it is a major task. Take, for example, the evaluation of recommendations such as those made by the Riekert Commission. It is an enormous task. Such an evaluation is accompanied by discussions with departmental heads, with Cabinet Ministers and others, people who have to convey their consent to the recommendations. I can give hon. members the assurance that the Public Service Commission and I realize that it is a matter which cannot be allowed to drag on for years, but ought to be completed within months.

I have tried in general to furnish the hon. member with replies to his questions on the position in education and in the police.

The hon. member for Walmer also referred to the nursing profession. I can give that hon. member and the hon. member for Durban Central the assurance that during the last two years special attention has been given to these three professional groups in particular, the police, the teachers and the nurses, as well as medical practitioners. It is those groups in fact that fall under the occupational differentiation to which I referred. Recently, too, appreciable improvements have been effected with regard to all the groups to which I have just referred. In fact this is the underlying philosophy which we are now applying in order to effect occupational differentiation in those groups where the supply is the lowest and to give specific attention to salary structures.

I concede that there is still dissatisfaction, but when will people ever be satisfied with their salaries? Hon. members must remember that this year the Public Service Commission received a total increased appropriation of only R257 million—that is all the Treasury could afford under the circumstances—with which to make these adjustments. In spite of that I think that adjustments have been made throughout the Public Service sector in such a way that there is maximum satisfaction. I am not saying complete satisfaction, but the maximum satisfaction. The Public Servants Association, in its official organ, expressed appreciation for what the Public Service Commission had accomplished under the circumstances. I think it was an exceptional achievement under difficult circumstances, an achievement for which we should give the Public Service Commission credit, the more so if we bear in mind, as I said earlier in my speech, that there are 600 occupations that had to be satisfied.

The hon. member for Walmer also referred to staff losses. I have also referred to that in general. The hon. member raised another very interesting matter when he asked us to make more use of retired senior staff members. The Public Service Commission and I are in such real earnest about this matter that I specifically went to the Cabinet this year and obtained certain concessions which will enable us in future to make greater use of senior staff members who have already retired and who can still be of use to us in various ways owing to their experience and skill.

The Opposition will then be able to use De Villiers Graaff again.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Umlazi for his contribution and tell him that the liaison with the private sector will have a high degree of permanence. Specific highly regarded persons in the private sector, whose names will be publicized from time to time, will liaise on a fixed basis with the Public Service Commission for a number of years. Consequently there will be a high degree of permanence. I also want to give him the assurance that under the guidance of the Prime Minister, and with the excellent assistance of the chairman and the members of the Commission, there will be cordial co-operation which will benefit everyone.

Because training measures are becoming so important in and for the Public Service, I want to conclude with a final short statement on the improvement of the staff position in the Public Service. The hon. member for Sandton need not be alarmed again now. It is only a short statement. At this stage I should like to announce that the Public Service Commission has just put a further measure into operation to improve the staff position in the Public Service. Besides the training provided by individual Government departments—where the Training Directorate of the commission provides advice throughout— the commission decided to intensify its own training efforts for senior State officials. It is the top-level officials in particular who experience the pressure of the ever-growing demands made by the national administration. For this reason the Public Service Commission has expanded its training programme, in administration, scope and depth.

†The training programme, which will be presented by way of courses and seminars, provides for 20 broad fields of study of which each is divided into a certain number of subjects of study. Under Secretaries and other personnel with equal grading, up to and including heads of departments, will participate in the programme on a differentiated basis. It will furthermore be endeavoured to obtain experts from the Public Service itself, the academic field and the private sector to act as lecturers or training officers. The first of the training sessions will be launched early during the second half of this year.

*Mr. Chairman, I conclude by thanking all the members of this House for the very pleasant debate which has been conducted and for the positive contributions which were made on both sides of this House.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.